MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285600461 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/548

Private Stochastic Convex Optimization and Sparse Learning with Heavy-tailed Data Revisited

2022· article· en· W4285600461 on OpenAlexaff
Youming Tao, Yulian Wu, Xiuzhen Cheng, Di Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsBounded functionLipschitz continuityConvex optimizationMathematicsMathematical optimizationRegular polygonConstraint (computer-aided design)Moment (physics)Upper and lower boundsCurse of dimensionalityEstimatorMonotonic functionOptimization problemConvex functionApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we revisit the problem of Differentially Private Stochastic Convex Optimization (DP-SCO) with heavy-tailed data, where the gradient of the loss function has bounded moments. Instead of the case where the loss function is Lipschitz or each coordinate of the gradient has bounded second moment studied previously, we consider a relaxed scenario where each coordinate of the gradient only has bounded (1+v)-th moment with some v∈(0, 1]. Firstly, we start from the one dimensional private mean estimation for heavy-tailed distributions. We propose a novel robust and private mean estimator which is optimal. Based on its idea, we then extend to the general d-dimensional space and study DP-SCO with general convex and strongly convex loss functions. We also provide lower bounds for these two classes of loss under our setting and show that our upper bounds are optimal up to a factor of O(Poly(d)). To address the high dimensionality issue, we also study DP-SCO with heavy-tailed gradient under some sparsity constraint (DP sparse learning). We propose a new method and show it is also optimal up to a factor of O(s*), where s* is the underlying sparsity of the constraint.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207