MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287685829 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.10526

Stochastic Multi-level Composition Optimization Algorithms with Level-Independent Convergence Rates

2020· preprint· en· W4287685829 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Davis
KeywordsOracleConvergence (economics)GeneralizationMathematicsAlgorithmFunction (biology)Sample (material)Composition (language)Stochastic optimizationMathematical optimizationStochastic approximationApplied mathematicsOrder (exchange)Computer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study smooth stochastic multi-level composition optimization problems, where the objective function is a nested composition of $T$ functions. We assume access to noisy evaluations of the functions and their gradients, through a stochastic first-order oracle. For solving this class of problems, we propose two algorithms using moving-average stochastic estimates, and analyze their convergence to an $ε$-stationary point of the problem. We show that the first algorithm, which is a generalization of \cite{GhaRuswan20} to the $T$ level case, can achieve a sample complexity of $\mathcal{O}(1/ε^6)$ by using mini-batches of samples in each iteration. By modifying this algorithm using linearized stochastic estimates of the function values, we improve the sample complexity to $\mathcal{O}(1/ε^4)$. {\color{black}This modification not only removes the requirement of having a mini-batch of samples in each iteration, but also makes the algorithm parameter-free and easy to implement}. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that such an online algorithm designed for the (un)constrained multi-level setting, obtains the same sample complexity of the smooth single-level setting, under standard assumptions (unbiasedness and boundedness of the second moments) on the stochastic first-order oracle.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.063 · 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