Source-linked AI summary

Solving Empirical Risk Minimization in the Current Matrix Multiplication Time

Yin Tat Lee, Zhao Song, Qiuyi Zhang

arXiv:1905.04447v1cs.DScs.LGmath.OCstat.ML

TL;DR

A general runtime bound for general empirical risk minimization (ERM) is not known, despite its broad use in machine learning. The paper develops a robust central-path approach and reports expected time n^{ω+o(1)} at ω∼2.38.

  • Problem

    A general runtime bound for general ERM is not known, although ERM captures almost all convex optimization in machine learning.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Method

    The method maintains a robust central path by controlling a soft-max potential while decreasing t through progress and centering steps.

    Source: §2.2 · p. 5, §4.2 · p. 9
  • Results

    At ω∼2.38, the expected time is n^{ω+o(1)}.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    The paper studies a general n-variable form that allows the dimensions of K_i to be arbitrary, for example n_i.

    Source: §1 · p. 2

    When n_i is superconstant, the running time depends polynomially on max_i n_i, but not exponentially.

    Source: §1 · p. 3

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Many convex problems in machine learning and computer science share the same form: \begin{align*} \min_{x} \sum_{i} f_i( A_i x + b_i), \end{align*} where $f_i$ are convex functions on $\mathbb{R}^{n_i}$ with constant $n_i$, $A_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_i \times d}$, $b_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_i}$ and $\sum_i n_i = n$. This problem generalizes linear programming and includes many problems in empirical risk minimization. In this paper, we give an algorithm that runs in time \begin{align*} O^* ( ( n^{\omega} + n^{2.5 - \alpha/2} + n^{2+ 1/6} ) \log (n / \delta) ) \end{align*} where $\omega$ is the exponent of matrix multiplication, $\alpha$ is the dual exponent of matrix multiplication, and $\delta$ is the relative accuracy. Note that the runtime has only a log dependence on the condition numbers or other data dependent parameters and these are captured in $\delta$. For the current bound $\omega \sim 2.38$ [Vassilevska Williams'12, Le Gall'14] and $\alpha \sim 0.31$ [Le Gall, Urrutia'18], our runtime $O^* ( n^{\omega} \log (n / \delta))$ matches the current best for solving a dense least squares regression problem, a special case of the problem we consider. Very recently, [Alman'18] proved that all the current known techniques can not give a better $\omega$ below $2.168$ which is larger than our $2+1/6$. Our result generalizes the very recent result of solving linear programs in the current matrix multiplication time [Cohen, Lee, Song'19] to a more broad class of problems. Our algorithm proposes two concepts which are different from [Cohen, Lee, Song'19] : $\bullet$ We give a robust deterministic central path method, whereas the previous one is a stochastic central path which updates weights by a random sparse vector. $\bullet$ We propose an efficient data-structure to maintain the central path of interior point methods even when the weights update vector is dense.

1 Introduction

The introduction frames ERM as a broad convex-optimization problem for which a general runtime bound is not known, then presents an algorithm for a general model with constant block dimensions. It places this goal alongside prior runtime results for linear programs and regression.

1 Introduction

  • ERM has well-understood statistical convergence and generalization bounds, but the introduction says a general runtime bound is not known.Fast runtime bounds exist for specific instances.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The model extends to blocks of arbitrary dimension n_i, with total dimension n, rather than only scalar inputs to each convex function.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The main theorem gives an algorithm for the general model, assuming no redundant constraints and n_i=O(1).Source: §1 · p. 2

1.1 Related Work

  • Interior point methods require repeated linear-system solves; inverse maintenance had already brought linear-program runtime to O(n^ω), near the cost of regression or matrix inversion.Source: §1.1 · p. 3
  • Prior ℓ_p regression bounds depend exponentially on p, and the cited work identifies no other ERM formulations with general high-accuracy runtime bounds.The cited ℓ_p results are and.Source: §1.1 · p. 3
  • Alman [Alm18] showed that the Universal method on the considered tensors cannot achieve a matrix-multiplication exponent below 2.168.Source: §1.1 · p. 3

2 Overview of Techniques

The section develops a robust central-path approach and uses sketching to speed up interior-point iterations. Its sketch-maintenance strategy and rectangular matrix multiplication help target near-matrix-multiplication runtime.

2 Overview of Techniques

  • The paper combines a robust interior-point method with a sketch-maintenance data structure to speed up iterative methods.The authors argue that robustness makes sketching applicable to interior-point methods.Source: §2 · p. 4

2.1 Central Path Method

  • The central path follows solutions as its parameter t decreases, with self-concordant barriers governing the path-following rate.The problem uses a direct product of low-dimensional convex sets and assumes barrier gradients and Hessians can be computed in O(1) time.Source: §2.1 · pp. 4–5

2.2 Robust Central Path

  • The robust analysis maintains a soft-max potential, with λ = Θ(log m); an ℓ∞ perturbation of γ causes a small multiplicative change in Φt, tolerating errors on each γi up to O(1/poly log(n)).Source: §2.2 · pp. 5–6

2.3 Speeding up via Sketching

  • Sketching reduces per-iteration matrix-vector work when the iterative method is robust to perturbations in its implicit vector.The paper sketches changes and actively corrects accumulated error while maintaining an approximate explicit vector and an exact implicit one.Source: §2.3 · p. 6

2.4 Maintaining the Sketch

  • Maintaining the sketched product RPz avoids computing the more expensive Pz, while the stacked sketches times P can be maintained in total eO(n^ω) cost.The argument bounds the accumulated error in a reweighted ℓ∞ norm by roughly eO(1) across the interior-point iterations.Source: §2.4 · p. 7

2.5 Fast rectangular matrix multiplication

  • The analysis uses rectangular multiplication with dual exponent α and delays low-rank updates when their rank is small.α is defined through multiplying n × n^α and n^α × n matrices in n^(2+o(1)) time.Source: §2.5 · p. 7

3 Preliminaries

The preliminaries fix the paper's block-structured convex-set notation and basic matrix and vector norms. They also state assumptions including full rank of the constraint matrix.

3 Preliminaries

  • The variable x is partitioned into blocks x_i associated with compact convex sets K_i whose dimensions sum to n.The feasible set is their direct product.Source: §3 · p. 7
  • The paper uses Frobenius and operator norms for matrices, and Euclidean and matrix-induced norms for vectors.For a PSD matrix A, the matrix-induced norm is defined by ∥v∥_A = (v^⊤Av)^(1/2).Source: §3 · p. 8
  • The setup assumes n ≥ 10 and no redundant constraints, which implies that the constraint matrix A is full rank.Source: §3 · p. 8

4 Robust Central Path

This section follows a perturbed central path using a robust potential and modified centering steps. The analysis bounds the potential through progress and centering, then transfers the approximation guarantee to the original problem.

4 Robust Central Path

  • The method measures blockwise error with a soft-max potential, enabling its analysis under ℓ∞ perturbations.The robust central path keeps Φ_t(x, s) ≤ O(m) while decreasing t through progress and centering steps.Source: §4 · p. 8, §4.2 · p. 9

4.2 Robust Central Path Method

  • Rather than use the standard Newton direction h = −µ, the robust method selects a centering step that reduces the potential under a bounded Hessian-norm move.The Hessian of φ is block diagonal, with block i given by ∇²φ_i(x_i).Source: §4.2 · pp. 9–10, §4.1 · p. 9
  • The robust interior-point method yields an approximate solution for the original convex program with error LR · δ after transferring the modified-program guarantee.The passage attributes the transfer to Lemma D.2.Source: §4.2 · p. 11

A.1 Outline of Analysis

The analysis organizes potential changes by separating the effects of x in the error term and Hessian. It assumes decomposable barriers and tracks blockwise step sizes.

A.1 Outline of Analysis

  • The analysis separates x's effect on the potential into its appearances in the µ term and the Hessian.Source: §A.1 · p. 18
  • The proof assumes the barrier function is decomposable, unlike standard ℓ2 interior-point proofs described here.Source: §A.1 · p. 18
  • The blockwise step sizes α_i matter because their squared sum is small.Source: §A.1 · p. 18

A.2 Changes in µ and γ

The appendix bounds changes to the central-path quantities and analyzes how successive parameter updates affect the potential. It concludes that the potential can remain small throughout the algorithm.

A.2 Changes in µ and γ

  • The appendix gives basic lemmas bounding changes in µ and γ due to centering steps.A stated bound is ξ_i ≤ 10α · α_i.Source: §A.2 · pp. 19–20

A.3 Movement from (x, x, s) to (xnew, x, snew)

  • The potential Φ_t decreases significantly when the first and third parameters move, subject to small perturbations.The movement analysis assumes ∥γ_t(x, x, s)∥∞ ≤ 1.Source: §A.3 · p. 22, §A.4 · p. 25

A.5 Movement of t

  • The appendix analyzes the effect on the potential of changing t to t_new.The movement lemma applies for any x and s satisfying its stated condition on γ_t.Source: §A.5 · p. 26

A.6 Potential Maintenance

  • The combined movement bounds are used to keep the potential Φ_t small throughout the algorithm.The analysis also states that ζ(x_new, s_new) ≤ 2ζ(x, s).Source: §A.6 · pp. 26–27

B Central Path Maintenance

The central-path maintenance data structure uses a low-rank embedding with ℓ∞ guarantees to support centering steps. Its stated operations maintain central-path parameters and projection matrices approximately or implicitly.

B Central Path Maintenance

  • A low-rank embedding with ℓ∞ guarantees supports centering steps, avoiding the O(n^2) cost of a simple matrix-vector product.The approach differs from [CLS19]’s sparse-vector approach and gives a stochastic version for dense direction h.Source: B Central Path Maintenance · p. 28
  • The randomized data structure approximately maintains projection matrices and implicitly maintains central-path parameters (x, s).The theorem assumes a full-rank matrix A, a block-diagonal structure, and a tolerance parameter.Source: B Central Path Maintenance · p. 28
  • With t decreasing, each MultiplyMove call takes O(nb + na^ω+o(1) + na∥h∥0 + n^1.5) amortized time.The stated bound depends on the sketch size b, parameter a, and the sparsity of h.Source: B Central Path Maintenance · p. 29

B.1 Proof of Theorem B.1

The proof defines matrix-valued potentials and analyzes their change by separating updates into two kinds of movement. It also adapts the potential ψ to handle matrices.

B.1 Proof of Theorem B.1

  • The matrix-valued diagonal blocks are ordered by Frobenius norm in the proof’s sorting step.This replaces the absolute-value ordering used for scalar entries in the cited comparison.Source: §B.1 · p. 31
  • The potential ψ is defined for square matrices, unlike [CLS19]’s scalar-input version.The definitions of g and Φ_k are stated to remain the same as [CLS19].Source: §B.1 · pp. 31–32
  • The proof rewrites the potential change as a w-move term and a v-move term, then bounds each separately.The bounds are assigned to Lemmas B.12 and B.15.Source: §B.1 · p. 34

B.2 Initialization time, update time, query time, move time, multiply time

The data structure has separate initialization, update, query, move, and multiply costs. The section also extends the analysis of W movement from scalars to matrices.

B.2 Initialization time, update time, query time, move time, multiply time

  • Initialization takes O(n^ω+o(1)) time.This is the stated initialization cost for CentralPathMaintenance.Source: §B.2 · p. 34
  • Partial updates take O(n^1+a) time, while full updates take O(r^ω n^2+o(1)) for r updated indices.The full-update bound is stated in terms of the number of indices updated in V.Source: §B.2 · pp. 34–35
  • Queries take O(n) time.The query returns the stored data structure outputs.Source: §B.2 · p. 35
  • Move operations cost O(n^ω+o(1)) in the worst case and O(n^ω−1/2+o(1)) amortized per iteration.The section also gives dense- and sparse-vector bounds for Multiply operations.Source: §B.2 · p. 35
  • For dense h, Multiply takes O(nb + n^1+a+o(1)); for sparse h, it takes O(nb + na^ω+o(1) + na∥h∥0).The sparse-vector bound depends on ∥h∥0.Source: §B.2 · p. 35

B.3 Bounding W move

  • The section extends the scalar W-move analysis of [CLS19] to matrices.The matrix version is identified as Lemma B.12.Source: §B.3 · p. 37

B.4 Bounding V move

This section extends central-path movement analysis from scalar to matrix updates. It also develops a matrix potential function and sketch-based closeness arguments for the maintained vectors.

B.4 Bounding V move

  • The V-movement analysis extends the scalar treatment in [CLS19] to the matrix version.The section frames this as understanding how V moves when represented as a matrix.Source: §B.4 · p. 39

B.5 Potential function ψ

  • The potential-function analysis generalizes the scalar potential in [CLS19] to matrices.The cited lemma describes symmetry, monotonicity in Frobenius norm, and a derivative lower bound.Source: §B.5 · p. 42

B.6 x and x are close

  • For x, the analysis establishes closeness with probability 1 − δ over the sketching matrix’s randomness.The proof considers a block and a random vector associated with it.Source: §B.6 · pp. 43–44

B.7 s and s are close

  • For s, the analysis likewise establishes closeness with probability 1 − δ over the sketching matrix’s randomness.The section notes that the argument follows the x-closeness proof with an additional update condition.Source: §B.7 · p. 45

B.8 Data structure is maintaining (x, s) implicitly over all the iterations

The data structure maintains x and s implicitly throughout the iterations, with the proof focusing on how PartialUpdate preserves those representations.

B.8 Data structure is maintaining (x, s) implicitly over all the iterations

  • Across iterations, u1 + Fu2 represents x implicitly, while u3 + Gu4 represents s implicitly.The proof focuses on PartialUpdate and treats FullUpdate as trivial.Source: §B.8 · p. 45
  • For x, the PartialUpdate proof assumes M is unchanged and verifies that its implicit representation remains valid.The corresponding argument for s uses the definition of Δu2.Source: §B.8 · pp. 45–46

C Combining Robust Central Path with Data Structure

This section combines the robust central path with its data structure and gives a guarantee for successive W matrices. The stated problem assumes constant-size blocks.

C Combining Robust Central Path with Data Structure

C.1 Guarantee for W matrices

  • The W-matrix guarantee relates the inverse Hessians at x and x + δx, with constants C1 = Θ(α) and C2 = Θ(α²).The argument also invokes Theorem 2.3.Source: §C.1 · pp. 47–48
  • The analysis assumes each block dimension satisfies ni = O(1) when bounding the data structure’s maintained vectors.Source: §C.1 · p. 48

C.2 Main result

The main result gives an algorithmic runtime bound under convex-program assumptions, and the section supplies an ERM corollary. It also describes the initialization and sketching analysis used in establishing the result.

C.2 Main result

  • The convex-program setup uses compact convex sets with self-concordant barriers, an initial point, and a bounded feasible-set diameter.The algorithm is presented as Robust Central Path and returns an approximate solution of the original ERM.Source: §C.2 · pp. 48–49
  • The amortized per-iteration cost is O(nb + n^(1+a) + n^1.5) plus terms involving n^(ω−1/2+o(1)) and n^(2−a/2+o(1)).The refined expression replaces the coefficient involving α and α² with 1/log^4 n.Source: §C.2 · p. 50

D Initial Point and Termination Condition

  • The initial-point and termination analysis uses self-concordant barriers and bounds the feasible set’s diameter by R.The supplied passages describe how a feasible point in the original problem is related to the modified problem.Source: D Initial Point and Termination… · pp. 51–52

E Basic Properties of Subsampled Hadamard Transform Matrix

  • The analysis uses a subsampled randomized Hadamard/Fourier matrix for ease of analysis, although direct matrix multiplication is preferred for runtime.The section notes that multiplying by the transform can be fast, but that is not the runtime choice used here.Source: E Basic Properties of Subsampled… · p. 53

E.1 Concentration inequalities; E.2 Properties obtained by random projection

  • The sketching analysis states expectation, variance, and high-probability guarantees for a fixed vector.The concentration section lists chi-squared, Khintchine, and Bernstein inequalities among its tools.Source: §E.1 · pp. 53–54, §E.2 · pp. 54–55
Loading 1905.04447v1…