More Like this

1. The Communication Complexity of Optimization

   https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.106  

   Vempala, Santosh S. ; Wang, Ruosong ; Woodruff, David P. ( January 2020 , ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms)

   null (Ed.)

   We consider the communication complexity of a number of distributed optimization problems. We start with the problem of solving a linear system. Suppose there is a coordinator together with s servers P1, …, Ps, the i-th of which holds a subset A(i) x = b(i) of ni constraints of a linear system in d variables, and the coordinator would like to output an x ϵ ℝd for which A(i) x = b(i) for i = 1, …, s. We assume each coefficient of each constraint is specified using L bits. We first resolve the randomized and deterministic communication complexity in the point-to-point model of communication, showing it is (d2 L + sd) and (sd2L), respectively. We obtain similar results for the blackboard communication model. As a result of independent interest, we show the probability a random matrix with integer entries in {–2L, …, 2L} is invertible is 1–2−Θ(dL), whereas previously only 1 – 2−Θ(d) was known. When there is no solution to the linear system, a natural alternative is to find the solution minimizing the ℓp loss, which is the ℓp regression problem. While this problem has been studied, we give improved upper or lower bounds for every value of p ≥ 1. One takeaway message is that sampling and sketching techniques, which are commonly used in earlier work on distributed optimization, are neither optimal in the dependence on d nor on the dependence on the approximation ε, thus motivating new techniques from optimization to solve these problems. Towards this end, we consider the communication complexity of optimization tasks which generalize linear systems, such as linear, semi-definite, and convex programming. For linear programming, we first resolve the communication complexity when d is constant, showing it is (sL) in the point-to-point model. For general d and in the point-to-point model, we show an Õ(sd3L) upper bound and an (d2 L + sd) lower bound. In fact, we show if one perturbs the coefficients randomly by numbers as small as 2−Θ(L), then the upper bound is Õ(sd2L) + poly(dL), and so this bound holds for almost all linear programs. Our study motivates understanding the bit complexity of linear programming, which is related to the running time in the unit cost RAM model with words of O(log(nd)) bits, and we give the fastest known algorithms for linear programming in this model. Read More: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/1.9781611975994.106 

   more » « less
2. Quantization and Training of Low Bit-Width Convolutional Neural Networks for Object Detection

   https://doi.org/10.4208/jcm.1803-m2017-0301.  

   Yin, P ; Zhang, S. ; Qi, Y-Y ; Xin, J ( January 2019 , Journal of Computational Mathematics)

   We present LBW-Net, an efficient optimization based method for quantization and training of the low bit-width convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Specifically, we quantize the weights to zero or powers of 2 by minimizing the Euclidean distance between full-precision weights and quantized weights during back-propagation (weight learning). We characterize the combinatorial nature of the low bit-width quantization problem. For 2-bit (ternary) CNNs, the quantization of N weights can be done by an exact formula in O(N log N) complexity. When the bit-width is 3 and above, we further propose a semi-analytical thresholding scheme with a single free parameter for quantization that is computationally inexpensive. The free parameter is further determined by network retraining and object detection tests. The LBW-Net has several desirable advantages over full-precision CNNs, including considerable memory savings, energy efficiency, and faster deployment. Our experiments on PASCAL VOC dataset show that compared with its 32-bit floating-point counterpart, the performance of the 6-bit LBW-Net is nearly lossless in the object detection tasks, and can even do better in real world visual scenes, while empirically enjoying more than 4× faster deployment. 

   more » « less
3. Generalization in portfolio-based algorithm selection

   Balcan, M.-F. ; Sandholm, T. ; Vitercik, E. ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

   null (Ed.)

   Portfolio-based algorithm selection has seen tremendous practical success over the past two decades. This algorithm configuration procedure works by first selecting a portfolio of diverse algorithm parameter settings, and then, on a given problem instance, using an algorithm selector to choose a parameter setting from the portfolio with strong predicted performance. Oftentimes, both the portfolio and the algorithm selector are chosen using a training set of typical problem instances from the application domain at hand. In this paper, we provide the first provable guarantees for portfolio-based algorithm selection. We analyze how large the training set should be to ensure that the resulting algorithm selector's average performance over the training set is close to its future (expected) performance. This involves analyzing three key reasons why these two quantities may diverge: 1) the learning-theoretic complexity of the algorithm selector, 2) the size of the portfolio, and 3) the learning-theoretic complexity of the algorithm's performance as a function of its parameters. We introduce an end-to-end learning-theoretic analysis of the portfolio construction and algorithm selection together. We prove that if the portfolio is large, overfitting is inevitable, even with an extremely simple algorithm selector. With experiments, we illustrate a tradeoff exposed by our theoretical analysis: as we increase the portfolio size, we can hope to include a well-suited parameter setting for every possible problem instance, but it becomes impossible to avoid overfitting. 

   more » « less
4. Optimal Coding Theorems in Time-Bounded Kolmogorov Complexity

   Lu, Zhenjian ; Oliveira, Igor C. ; Zimand, Marius ( January 2022 , 49th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2022))

   Mikołaj Bojańczyk and Emanuela Merelli and David P. Woodruff (Ed.)

   The classical coding theorem in Kolmogorov complexity states that if an n-bit string x is sampled with probability δ by an algorithm with prefix-free domain then K(x) ≤ log(1/δ) + O(1). In a recent work, Lu and Oliveira [31] established an unconditional time-bounded version of this result, by showing that if x can be efficiently sampled with probability δ then rKt(x) = O(log(1/δ)) + O(log n), where rKt denotes the randomized analogue of Levin’s Kt complexity. Unfortunately, this result is often insufficient when transferring applications of the classical coding theorem to the time-bounded setting, as it achieves a O(log(1/δ)) bound instead of the information-theoretic optimal log(1/δ). Motivated by this discrepancy, we investigate optimal coding theorems in the time-bounded setting. Our main contributions can be summarised as follows. • Efficient coding theorem for rKt with a factor of 2. Addressing a question from [31], we show that if x can be efficiently sampled with probability at least δ then rKt(x) ≤ (2 + o(1)) · log(1/δ) +O(log n). As in previous work, our coding theorem is efficient in the sense that it provides a polynomial-time probabilistic algorithm that, when given x, the code of the sampler, and δ, it outputs, with probability ≥ 0.99, a probabilistic representation of x that certifies this rKt complexity bound. • Optimality under a cryptographic assumption. Under a hypothesis about the security of cryptographic pseudorandom generators, we show that no efficient coding theorem can achieve a bound of the form rKt(x) ≤ (2 − o(1)) · log(1/δ) + poly(log n). Under a weaker assumption, we exhibit a gap between efficient coding theorems and existential coding theorems with near-optimal parameters. • Optimal coding theorem for pKt and unconditional Antunes-Fortnow. We consider pKt complexity [17], a variant of rKt where the randomness is public and the time bound is fixed. We observe the existence of an optimal coding theorem for pKt, and employ this result to establish an unconditional version of a theorem of Antunes and Fortnow [5] which characterizes the worst-case running times of languages that are in average polynomial-time over all P-samplable distributions. 

   more » « less
5. The Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge: Design, Implementation, and Test of a New Crowd-Sourced AI Challenge Ecosystem

   Kiral, Isabell ; Roy, Subhrajit ; Mummert, Todd ; Braz, Alan ; Tsay, Jason ; Tang, Jianbin ; Asif, Umar ; Schaffter, Thomas ; Mehmet, Eren ; Picone, Joseph ; et al ( April 2019 , Challenges in Machine Learning Competitions for All (CiML))

   null (Ed.)

   The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmet is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert data scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge. 

   more » « less