Researcher profile

Özgür Yilmaz

Özgür Yilmaz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

On the best choice of Lasso program given data parameters

Generalized compressed sensing (GCS) is a paradigm in which a structured high-dimensional signal may be recovered from random, under-determined, and corrupted linear measurements. Generalized Lasso (GL) programs are effective for solving GCS problems due to their proven ability to leverage underlying signal structure. Three popular GL programs are equivalent in a sense and sometimes used interchangeably. Tuned by a governing parameter, each admit an optimal parameter choice. For sparse or low-rank signal structures, this choice yields minimax order-optimal error. While GCS is well-studied, existing theory for GL programs typically concerns this optimally tuned setting. However, the optimal parameter value for a GL program depends on properties of the data, and is typically unknown in practical settings. Performance in empirical problems thus hinges on a program's parameter sensitivity: it is desirable that small variation about the optimal parameter choice begets small variation about the optimal risk. We examine the risk for these three programs and demonstrate that their parameter sensitivity can differ for the same data. We prove a gauge-constrained GL program admits asymptotic cusp-like behaviour of its risk in the limiting low-noise regime. We prove that a residual-constrained Lasso program has asymptotically suboptimal risk for very sparse vectors. These results contrast observations about an unconstrained Lasso program, which is relatively less sensitive to its parameter choice. We support the asymptotic theory with numerical simulations, demonstrating that parameter sensitivity of GL programs is readily observed for even modest dimensional parameters. Importantly, these simulations demonstrate regimes in which a GL program exhibits sensitivity to its parameter choice, though the other two do not. We hope this work aids practitioners in selecting a GL program for their problem.

preprint2019arXiv

Sensitivity of $\ell_{1}$ minimization to parameter choice

The use of generalized LASSO is a common technique for recovery of structured high-dimensional signals. Each generalized LASSO program has a governing parameter whose optimal value depends on properties of the data. At this optimal value, compressed sensing theory explains why LASSO programs recover structured high-dimensional signals with minimax order-optimal error. Unfortunately in practice, the optimal choice is generally unknown and must be estimated. Thus, we investigate stability of each LASSO program with respect to its governing parameter. Our goal is to aid the practitioner in answering the following question: given real data, which LASSO program should be used? We take a step towards answering this by analyzing the case where the measurement matrix is identity (the so-called proximal denoising setup) and we use $\ell_{1}$ regularization. For each LASSO program, we specify settings in which that program is provably unstable with respect to its governing parameter. We support our analysis with detailed numerical simulations. For example, there are settings where a 0.1% underestimate of a LASSO parameter can increase the error significantly; and a 50% underestimate can cause the error to increase by a factor of $10^{9}$.