Adaptive Importance Sampling for Finite-Sum Optimization and Sampling with Decreasing Step-Sizes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing the variance of the gradient estimator is known to improve the convergence rate of stochastic gradient-based optimization and sampling algorithms. One way of achieving variance reduction is to design importance sampling strategies. Recently, the problem of designing such schemes was formulated as an online learning problem with bandit feedback, and algorithms with sub-linear static regret were designed. In this work, we build on this framework and propose Avare, a simple and efficient algorithm for adaptive importance sampling for finite-sum optimization and sampling with decreasing step-sizes. Under standard technical conditions, we show that Avare achieves $\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3})$ and $\mathcal{O}(T^{5/6})$ dynamic regret for SGD and SGLD respectively when run with $\mathcal{O}(1/t)$ step sizes. We achieve this dynamic regret bound by leveraging our knowledge of the dynamics defined by the algorithm, and combining ideas from online learning and variance-reduced stochastic optimization. We validate empirically the performance of our algorithm and identify settings in which it leads to significant improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".