Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDouble descent in the condition number
116
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In solving a system of $n$ linear equations in $d$ variables $Ax=b$, the condition number of the $n,d$ matrix $A$ measures how much errors in the data $b$ affect the solution $x$. Estimates of this type are important in many inverse problems. An example is machine learning where the key task is to estimate an underlying function from a set of measurements at random points in a high dimensional space and where low sensitivity to error in the data is a requirement for good predictive performance. Here we discuss the simple observation, which is known but surprisingly little quoted (see Theorem 4.2 in cite{Brgisser:2013:CGN:2526261}): when the columns of $A$ are random vectors, the condition number of $A$ is highest if $d=n$, that is when the inverse of $A$ exists. An overdetermined system ($n>d$) as well as an underdetermined system ($n<d$), for which the pseudoinverse must be used instead of the inverse, typically have significantly better, that is lower, condition numbers. Thus the condition number of $A$ plotted as function of $d$ shows a double descent behavior with a peak at $d=n$.
rate research
Read More
The double descent risk curve was proposed to qualitatively describe the out-of-sample prediction accuracy of variably-parameterized machine learning models. This article provides a precise mathematical analysis for the shape of this curve in two simple data models with the least squares/least norm predictor. Specifically, it is shown that the risk peaks when the number of features $p$ is close to the sample size $n$, but also that the risk decreases towards its minimum as $p$ increases beyond $n$. This behavior is contrasted with that of prescient models that select features in an a priori optimal order.
Deep networks are typically trained with many more parameters than the size of the training dataset. Recent empirical evidence indicates that the practice of overparameterization not only benefits training large models, but also assists - perhaps counterintuitively - building lightweight models. Specifically, it suggests that overparameterization benefits model pruning / sparsification. This paper sheds light on these empirical findings by theoretically characterizing the high-dimensional asymptotics of model pruning in the overparameterized regime. The theory presented addresses the following core question: should one train a small model from the beginning, or first train a large model and then prune?. We analytically identify regimes in which, even if the location of the most informative features is known, we are better off fitting a large model and then pruning rather than simply training with the known informative features. This leads to a new double descent in the training of sparse models: growing the original model, while preserving the target sparsity, improves the test accuracy as one moves beyond the overparameterization threshold. Our analysis further reveals the benefit of retraining by relating it to feature correlations. We find that the above phenomena are already present in linear and random-features models. Our technical approach advances the toolset of high-dimensional analysis and precisely characterizes the asymptotic distribution of over-parameterized least-squares. The intuition gained by analytically studying simpler models is numerically verified on neural networks.
Non-convex optimization problems are challenging to solve; the success and computational expense of a gradient descent algorithm or variant depend heavily on the initialization strategy. Often, either random initialization is used or initialization rules are carefully designed by exploiting the nature of the problem class. As a simple alternative to hand-crafted initialization rules, we propose an approach for learning good initialization rules from previous solutions. We provide theoretical guarantees that establish conditions that are sufficient in all cases and also necessary in some under which our approach performs better than random initialization. We apply our methodology to various non-convex problems such as generating adversarial examples, generating post hoc explanations for black-box machine learning models, and allocating communication spectrum, and show consistent gains over other initialization techniques.
Working with any gradient-based machine learning algorithm involves the tedious task of tuning the optimizers hyperparameters, such as the learning rate. There exist many techniques for automated hyperparameter optimization, but they typically introduce even more hyperparameters to control the hyperparameter optimization process. We propose to instead learn the hyperparameters themselves by gradient descent, and furthermore to learn the hyper-hyperparameters by gradient descent as well, and so on ad infinitum. As these towers of gradient-based optimizers grow, they become significantly less sensitive to the choice of top-level hyperparameters, hence decreasing the burden on the user to search for optimal values.
Recent empirical and theoretical studies have shown that many learning algorithms -- from linear regression to neural networks -- can have test performance that is non-monotonic in quantities such the sample size and model size. This striking phenomenon, often referred to as double descent, has raised questions of if we need to re-think our current understanding of generalization. In this work, we study whether the double-descent phenomenon can be avoided by using optimal regularization. Theoretically, we prove that for certain linear regression models with isotropic data distribution, optimally-tuned $ell_2$ regularization achieves monotonic test performance as we grow either the sample size or the model size. We also demonstrate empirically that optimally-tuned $ell_2$ regularization can mitigate double descent for more general models, including neural networks. Our results suggest that it may also be informative to study the test risk scalings of various algorithms in the context of appropriately tuned regularization.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
