Stochastic Multi-level Composition Optimization Algorithms with Level-Independent Convergence Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".