Sample Average Approximation for Stochastic Optimization with Dependent Data: Performance Guarantees and Tractability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample average approximation (SAA), a popular method for tractably solving stochastic optimization problems, enjoys strong asymptotic performance guarantees in settings with independent training samples. However, these guarantees are not known to hold generally with dependent samples, such as in online learning with time series data or distributed computing with Markovian training samples. In this paper, we show that SAA remains tractable when the distribution of unknown parameters is only observable through dependent instances and still enjoys asymptotic consistency and finite sample guarantees. Specifically, we provide a rigorous probability error analysis to derive 1 - beta confidence bounds for the out-of-sample performance of SAA estimators and show that these estimators are asymptotically consistent. We then, using monotone operator theory, study the performance of a class of stochastic first-order algorithms trained on a dependent source of data. We show that approximation error for these algorithms is bounded and concentrates around zero, and establish deviation bounds for iterates when the underlying stochastic process is phi-mixing. The algorithms presented can be used to handle numerically inconvenient loss functions such as the sum of a smooth and non-smooth function or of non-smooth functions with constraints. To illustrate the usefulness of our results, we present several stochastic versions of popular algorithms such as stochastic proximal gradient descent (S-PGD), stochastic relaxed Peaceman-Rachford splitting algorithms (S-rPRS), and numerical experiment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".