Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
Empirical risk minimization (ERM) is known to be non-robust in practice to distributional shift where the training and the test distributions are different. A suite of approaches, such as importance weighting, and variants of distributionally robust optimization (DRO), have been proposed to solve this problem. But a line of recent work has empirically shown that these approaches do not significantly improve over ERM in real applications with distribution shift. The goal of this work is to obtain a comprehensive theoretical understanding of this intriguing phenomenon. We first posit the class of Generalized Reweighting (GRW) algorithms, as a broad category of approaches that iteratively update model parameters based on iterative reweighting of the training samples. We show that when overparameterized models are trained under GRW, the resulting models are close to that obtained by ERM. We also show that adding small regularization which does not greatly affect the empirical training accuracy does not help. Together, our results show that a broad category of what we term GRW approaches are not able to achieve distributionally robust generalization. Our work thus has the following sobering takeaway: to make progress towards distributionally robust generalization, we either have to develop non-GRW approaches, or perhaps devise novel classification/regression loss functions that are adapted to GRW approaches.more » « less
-
Adrian Weller (Ed.)A wide range of machine learning applications such as privacy-preserving learning, algorithmic fairness, and domain adaptation/generalization among others, involve learning invariant representations of the data that aim to achieve two competing goals: (a) maximize information or accuracy with respect to a target response, and (b) maximize invariance or independence with respect to a set of protected features (e.g. for fairness, privacy, etc). Despite their wide applicability, theoretical understanding of the optimal tradeoffs — with respect to accuracy, and invariance — achievable by invariant representations is still severely lacking. In this paper, we provide an information theoretic analysis of such tradeoffs under both classification and regression settings. More precisely, we provide a geometric characterization of the accuracy and invariance achievable by any representation of the data; we term this feasible region the information plane. We provide an inner bound for this feasible region for the classification case, and an exact characterization for the regression case, which allows us to either bound or exactly characterize the Pareto optimal frontier between accuracy and invariance. Although our contributions are mainly theoretical, a key practical application of our results is in certifying the potential sub-optimality of any given representation learning algorithm for either classification or regression tasks. Our results shed new light on the fundamental interplay between accuracy and invariance, and may be useful in guiding the design of future representation learning algorithms.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Simulated annealing is an effective and general means of optimization. It is in fact inspired by metallurgy, where the temperature of a material determines its behavior in thermodynamics. Likewise, in simulated annealing, the actions that the algorithm takes depend entirely on the value of a variable which captures the notion of temperature. Typically, simulated annealing starts with a high temperature, which makes the algorithm pretty unpredictable, and gradually cools the temperature down to become more stable. A key component that plays a crucial role in the performance of simulated annealing is the criteria under which the temperature changes namely, the cooling schedule. Motivated by this, we study the following question in this work: "Given enough samples to the instances of a specific class of optimization problems, can we design optimal (or approximately optimal) cooling schedules that minimize the runtime or maximize the success rate of the algorithm on average when the underlying problem is drawn uniformly at random from the same class?" We provide positive results both in terms of sample complexity and simulation complexity. For sample complexity, we show that O (m^1/2) samples suffice to find an approximately optimal cooling schedule of length m. We complement this result by giving a lower bound of Ω (m^1/3) on the sample complexity of any learning algorithm that provides an almost optimal cooling schedule. These results are general and rely on no assumption. For simulation complexity, however, we make additional assumptions to measure the success rate of an algorithm. To this end, we introduce the monotone stationary graph that models the performance of simulated annealing. Based on this model, we present polynomial time algorithms with provable guarantees for the learning problem.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)We develop a framework for learning sparse nonparametric directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) from data. Our approach is based on a recent algebraic characterization of DAGs that led to a fully continuous program for score-based learning of DAG models parametrized by a linear structural equation model (SEM). We extend this algebraic characterization to nonparametric SEM by leveraging nonparametric sparsity based on partial derivatives, resulting in a continuous optimization problem that can be applied to a variety of nonparametric and semiparametric models including GLMs, additive noise models, and index models as special cases. Unlike existing approaches that require specific modeling choices, loss functions, or algorithms, we present a completely general framework that can be applied to general nonlinear models (e.g. without additive noise), general differentiable loss functions, and generic black-box optimization routines.more » « less