skip to main content


Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1804794

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.

  1. Abstract We explore why many recently proposed robust estimation problems are efficiently solvable, even though the underlying optimization problems are non-convex. We study the loss landscape of these robust estimation problems, and identify the existence of ’generalized quasi-gradients’. Whenever these quasi-gradients exist, a large family of no-regret algorithms are guaranteed to approximate the global minimum; this includes the commonly used filtering algorithm. For robust mean estimation of distributions under bounded covariance, we show that any first-order stationary point of the associated optimization problem is an approximate global minimum if and only if the corruption level $\epsilon < 1/3$. Consequently, any optimization algorithm that approaches a stationary point yields an efficient robust estimator with breakdown point $1/3$. With carefully designed initialization and step size, we improve this to $1/2$, which is optimal. For other tasks, including linear regression and joint mean and covariance estimation, the loss landscape is more rugged: there are stationary points arbitrarily far from the global minimum. Nevertheless, we show that generalized quasi-gradients exist and construct efficient algorithms. These algorithms are simpler than previous ones in the literature, and for linear regression we improve the estimation error from $O(\sqrt{\epsilon })$ to the optimal rate of $O(\epsilon )$ for small $\epsilon $ assuming certified hypercontractivity. For mean estimation with near-identity covariance, we show that a simple gradient descent algorithm achieves breakdown point $1/3$ and iteration complexity $\tilde{O}(d/\epsilon ^2)$. 
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
  3. null (Ed.)
  4. null (Ed.)