Results 1 - 10
of
45
Online Convex Programming and Generalized Infinitesimal Gradient Ascent
, 2003
"... Convex programming involves a convex set F R and a convex function c : F ! R. The goal of convex programming is to nd a point in F which minimizes c. In this paper, we introduce online convex programming. In online convex programming, the convex set is known in advance, but in each step of some ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 125 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Convex programming involves a convex set F R and a convex function c : F ! R. The goal of convex programming is to nd a point in F which minimizes c. In this paper, we introduce online convex programming. In online convex programming, the convex set is known in advance, but in each step of some repeated optimization problem, one must select a point in F before seeing the cost function for that step. This can be used to model factory production, farm production, and many other industrial optimization problems where one is unaware of the value of the items produced until they have already been constructed. We introduce an algorithm for this domain, apply it to repeated games, and show that it is really a generalization of in nitesimal gradient ascent, and the results here imply that generalized in nitesimal gradient ascent (GIGA) is universally consistent.
Relative Loss Bounds for On-line Density Estimation with the Exponential Family of Distributions
- MACHINE LEARNING
, 2000
"... We consider on-line density estimation with a parameterized density from the exponential family. The on-line algorithm receives one example at a time and maintains a parameter that is essentially an average of the past examples. After receiving an example the algorithm incurs a loss, which is the n ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 83 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We consider on-line density estimation with a parameterized density from the exponential family. The on-line algorithm receives one example at a time and maintains a parameter that is essentially an average of the past examples. After receiving an example the algorithm incurs a loss, which is the negative loglikelihood of the example with respect to the past parameter of the algorithm. An o-line algorithm can choose the best parameter based on all the examples. We prove bounds on the additional total loss of the on-line algorithm over the total loss of the best o-line parameter. These relative loss bounds hold for an arbitrary sequence of examples. The goal is to design algorithms with the best possible relative loss bounds. We use a Bregman divergence to derive and analyze each algorithm. These divergences are relative entropies between two exponential distributions. We also use our methods to prove relative loss bounds for linear regression.
General convergence results for linear discriminant updates
- Machine Learning
, 1997
"... Abstract. The problem of learning linear-discriminant concepts can be solved by various mistake-driven update procedures, including the Winnow family of algorithms and the well-known Perceptron algorithm. In this paper we define the general class of “quasi-additive ” algorithms, which includes Perce ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 73 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The problem of learning linear-discriminant concepts can be solved by various mistake-driven update procedures, including the Winnow family of algorithms and the well-known Perceptron algorithm. In this paper we define the general class of “quasi-additive ” algorithms, which includes Perceptron and Winnow as special cases. We give a single proof of convergence that covers a broad subset of algorithms in this class, including both Perceptron and Winnow, but also many new algorithms. Our proof hinges on analyzing a generic measure of progress construction that gives insight as to when and how such algorithms converge. Our measure of progress construction also permits us to obtain good mistake bounds for individual algorithms. We apply our unified analysis to new algorithms as well as existing algorithms. When applied to known algorithms, our method “automatically ” produces close variants of existing proofs (recovering similar bounds)—thus showing that, in a certain sense, these seemingly diverse results are fundamentally isomorphic. However, we also demonstrate that the unifying principles are more broadly applicable, and analyze a new class of algorithms that smoothly interpolate between the additive-update behavior of Perceptron and the multiplicative-update behavior of Winnow.
Logarithmic regret algorithms for online convex optimization
- In 19’th COLT
, 2006
"... Abstract. In an online convex optimization problem a decision-maker makes a sequence of decisions, i.e., choose a sequence of points in Euclidean space, from a fixed feasible set. After each point is chosen, it encounters an sequence of (possibly unrelated) convex cost functions. Zinkevich [Zin03] i ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 65 (19 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In an online convex optimization problem a decision-maker makes a sequence of decisions, i.e., choose a sequence of points in Euclidean space, from a fixed feasible set. After each point is chosen, it encounters an sequence of (possibly unrelated) convex cost functions. Zinkevich [Zin03] introduced this framework, which models many natural repeated decision-making problems and generalizes many existing problems such as Prediction from Expert Advice and Cover’s Universal Portfolios. Zinkevich showed that a simple online gradient descent algorithm achieves additive regret O ( √ T), for an arbitrary sequence of T convex cost functions (of bounded gradients), with respect to the best single decision in hindsight. In this paper, we give algorithms that achieve regret O(log(T)) for an arbitrary sequence of strictly convex functions (with bounded first and second derivatives). This mirrors what has been done for the special cases of prediction from expert advice by Kivinen and Warmuth [KW99], and Universal Portfolios by Cover [Cov91]. We propose several algorithms achieving logarithmic regret, which besides being more general are also much more efficient to implement. The main new ideas give rise to an efficient algorithm based on the Newton method for optimization, a new tool in the field. Our analysis shows a surprising connection to follow-the-leader method, and builds on the recent work of Agarwal and Hazan [AH05]. We also analyze other algorithms, which tie together several different previous approaches including follow-the-leader, exponential weighting, Cover’s algorithm and gradient descent. 1
Approximate Solutions to Markov Decision Processes
, 1999
"... One of the basic problems of machine learning is deciding how to act in an uncertain world. For example, if I want my robot to bring me a cup of coffee, it must be able to compute the correct sequence of electrical impulses to send to its motors to navigate from the coffee pot to my office. In fact, ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 62 (9 self)
- Add to MetaCart
One of the basic problems of machine learning is deciding how to act in an uncertain world. For example, if I want my robot to bring me a cup of coffee, it must be able to compute the correct sequence of electrical impulses to send to its motors to navigate from the coffee pot to my office. In fact, since the results of its actions are not completely predictable, it is not enough just to compute the correct sequence; instead the robot must sense and correct for deviations from its intended path. In order for any machine learner to act reasonably in an uncertain environment, it must solve problems like the above one quickly and reliably. Unfortunately, the world is often so complicated that it is difficult or impossible to find the optimal sequence of actions to achieve a given goal. So, in order to scale our learners up to real-world problems, we usually must settle for approximate solutions. One representation for a learner's environment and goals is a Markov decision process or MDP. ...
Adaptive and Self-Confident On-Line Learning Algorithms
, 2000
"... We study on-line learning in the linear regression framework. Most of the performance bounds for on-line algorithms in this framework assume a constant learning rate. To achieve these bounds the learning rate must be optimized based on a posteriori information. This information depends on the wh ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 50 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We study on-line learning in the linear regression framework. Most of the performance bounds for on-line algorithms in this framework assume a constant learning rate. To achieve these bounds the learning rate must be optimized based on a posteriori information. This information depends on the whole sequence of examples and thus it is not available to any strictly on-line algorithm. We introduce new techniques for adaptively tuning the learning rate as the data sequence is progressively revealed. Our techniques allow us to prove essentially the same bounds as if we knew the optimal learning rate in advance. Moreover, such techniques apply to a wide class of on-line algorithms, including p-norm algorithms for generalized linear regression and Weighted Majority for linear regression with absolute loss. Our adaptive tunings are radically dierent from previous techniques, such as the so-called doubling trick. Whereas the doubling trick restarts the on-line algorithm several ti...
Tracking the Best Linear Predictor
- Journal of Machine Learning Research
, 2001
"... In most on-line learning research the total on-line loss of the algorithm is compared to the total loss of the best off-line predictor u from a comparison class of predictors. We call such bounds static bounds. The interesting feature of these bounds is that they hold for an arbitrary sequence of ex ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 43 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
In most on-line learning research the total on-line loss of the algorithm is compared to the total loss of the best off-line predictor u from a comparison class of predictors. We call such bounds static bounds. The interesting feature of these bounds is that they hold for an arbitrary sequence of examples. Recently some work has been done where the predictor u t at each trial t is allowed to change with time, and the total on-line loss of the algorithm is compared to the sum of the losses of u t at each trial plus the total "cost" for shifting to successive predictors. This is to model situations in which the examples change over time, and different predictors from the comparison class are best for different segments of the sequence of examples. We call such bounds shifting bounds. They hold for arbitrary sequences of examples and arbitrary sequences of predictors. Naturally shifting bounds are much harder to prove. The only known bounds are for the case when the comparison class consists of a sequences of experts or boolean disjunctions. In this paper we develop the methodology for lifting known static bounds to the shifting case. In particular we obtain bounds when the comparison class consists of linear neurons (linear combinations of experts). Our essential technique is to project the hypothesis of the static algorithm at the end of each trial into a suitably chosen convex region. This keeps the hypothesis of the algorithm well-behaved and the static bounds can be converted to shifting bounds.
Exponentiated gradient algorithms for large-margin structured classification
- In Advances in neural information processing systems
, 2005
"... We consider the problem of structured classification, where the task is to predict a label from an input, and has meaningful internal structure. Our framework includes supervised training of Markov random fields and weighted context-free grammars as special cases. We describe an algorithm that solve ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 37 (9 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We consider the problem of structured classification, where the task is to predict a label from an input, and has meaningful internal structure. Our framework includes supervised training of Markov random fields and weighted context-free grammars as special cases. We describe an algorithm that solves the large-margin optimization problem defined in [12], using an exponential-family (Gibbs distribution) representation of structured objects. The algorithm is efficient—even in cases where the number of labels is exponential in size—provided that certain expectations under Gibbs distributions can be calculated efficiently. The method for structured labels relies on a more general result, specifically the application of exponentiated gradient updates [7, 8] to quadratic programs. 1
Exponentiated gradient algorithms for conditional random fields and maxmargin Markov networks
, 2008
"... Log-linear and maximum-margin models are two commonly-used methods in supervised machine learning, and are frequently used in structured prediction problems. Efficient learning of parameters in these models is therefore an important problem, and becomes a key factor when learning from very large dat ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 35 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Log-linear and maximum-margin models are two commonly-used methods in supervised machine learning, and are frequently used in structured prediction problems. Efficient learning of parameters in these models is therefore an important problem, and becomes a key factor when learning from very large data sets. This paper describes exponentiated gradient (EG) algorithms for training such models, where EG updates are applied to the convex dual of either the log-linear or maxmargin objective function; the dual in both the log-linear and max-margin cases corresponds to minimizing a convex function with simplex constraints. We study both batch and online variants of the algorithm, and provide rates of convergence for both cases. In the max-margin case, O ( 1 ε) EG updates are required to reach a given accuracy ε in the dual; in contrast, for log-linear models only O(log (1/ε)) updates are required. For both the max-margin and log-linear cases, our bounds suggest that the online EG algorithm requires a factor of n less computation to reach a desired accuracy than the batch EG algorithm, where n is the number of training examples. Our experiments confirm that the online algorithms are much faster than the batch algorithms in practice. We describe how the EG updates factor in a convenient way for structured prediction problems, allowing the algorithms to be
Relative Loss Bounds for Single Neurons
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
, 1996
"... We analyze and compare the well-known Gradient Descent algorithm and the more recent Exponentiated Gradient algorithm for training a single neuron with an arbitrary transfer function. Both algorithms are easily generalized to larger neural networks, and the generalization of Gradient Descent is the ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 34 (4 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We analyze and compare the well-known Gradient Descent algorithm and the more recent Exponentiated Gradient algorithm for training a single neuron with an arbitrary transfer function. Both algorithms are easily generalized to larger neural networks, and the generalization of Gradient Descent is the standard back-propagation algorithm. In this paper we prove worst-case loss bounds for both algorithms in the single neuron case. Since local minima make it difficult to prove worst-case bounds for gradientbased algorithms, we must use a loss function that prevents the formation of spurious local minima. We define such a matching loss function for any strictly increasing differentiable transfer function and prove worst-case loss bounds for any such transfer function and its corresponding matching loss. For example, the matching loss for the identity function is the square loss and the matching loss for the logistic transfer function is the entropic loss. The different forms of the two algori...

