BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Sham M. Kakade

Sham M. Kakade contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningmath.OCArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
3topics
4close 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

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Last Iterate Risk Bounds of SGD with Decaying Stepsize for Overparameterized Linear Regression

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) has been shown to generalize well in many deep learning applications. In practice, one often runs SGD with a geometrically decaying stepsize, i.e., a constant initial stepsize followed by multiple geometric stepsize decay, and uses the last iterate as the output. This kind of SGD is known to be nearly minimax optimal for classical finite-dimensional linear regression problems (Ge et al., 2019). However, a sharp analysis for the last iterate of SGD in the overparameterized setting is still open. In this paper, we provide a problem-dependent analysis on the last iterate risk bounds of SGD with decaying stepsize, for (overparameterized) linear regression problems. In particular, for last iterate SGD with (tail) geometrically decaying stepsize, we prove nearly matching upper and lower bounds on the excess risk. Moreover, we provide an excess risk lower bound for last iterate SGD with polynomially decaying stepsize and demonstrate the advantage of geometrically decaying stepsize in an instance-wise manner, which complements the minimax rate comparison made in prior works.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Risk Bounds of Multi-Pass SGD for Least Squares in the Interpolation Regime

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) has achieved great success due to its superior performance in both optimization and generalization. Most of existing generalization analyses are made for single-pass SGD, which is a less practical variant compared to the commonly-used multi-pass SGD. Besides, theoretical analyses for multi-pass SGD often concern a worst-case instance in a class of problems, which may be pessimistic to explain the superior generalization ability for some particular problem instance. The goal of this paper is to sharply characterize the generalization of multi-pass SGD, by developing an instance-dependent excess risk bound for least squares in the interpolation regime, which is expressed as a function of the iteration number, stepsize, and data covariance. We show that the excess risk of SGD can be exactly decomposed into the excess risk of GD and a positive fluctuation error, suggesting that SGD always performs worse, instance-wisely, than GD, in generalization. On the other hand, we show that although SGD needs more iterations than GD to achieve the same level of excess risk, it saves the number of stochastic gradient evaluations, and therefore is preferable in terms of computational time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Benefits of Implicit Regularization from SGD in Least Squares Problems

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) exhibits strong algorithmic regularization effects in practice, which has been hypothesized to play an important role in the generalization of modern machine learning approaches. In this work, we seek to understand these issues in the simpler setting of linear regression (including both underparameterized and overparameterized regimes), where our goal is to make sharp instance-based comparisons of the implicit regularization afforded by (unregularized) average SGD with the explicit regularization of ridge regression. For a broad class of least squares problem instances (that are natural in high-dimensional settings), we show: (1) for every problem instance and for every ridge parameter, (unregularized) SGD, when provided with logarithmically more samples than that provided to the ridge algorithm, generalizes no worse than the ridge solution (provided SGD uses a tuned constant stepsize); (2) conversely, there exist instances (in this wide problem class) where optimally-tuned ridge regression requires quadratically more samples than SGD in order to have the same generalization performance. Taken together, our results show that, up to the logarithmic factors, the generalization performance of SGD is always no worse than that of ridge regression in a wide range of overparameterized problems, and, in fact, could be much better for some problem instances. More generally, our results show how algorithmic regularization has important consequences even in simpler (overparameterized) convex settings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Power and Limitation of Pretraining-Finetuning for Linear Regression under Covariate Shift

We study linear regression under covariate shift, where the marginal distribution over the input covariates differs in the source and the target domains, while the conditional distribution of the output given the input covariates is similar across the two domains. We investigate a transfer learning approach with pretraining on the source data and finetuning based on the target data (both conducted by online SGD) for this problem. We establish sharp instance-dependent excess risk upper and lower bounds for this approach. Our bounds suggest that for a large class of linear regression instances, transfer learning with $O(N^2)$ source data (and scarce or no target data) is as effective as supervised learning with $N$ target data. In addition, we show that finetuning, even with only a small amount of target data, could drastically reduce the amount of source data required by pretraining. Our theory sheds light on the effectiveness and limitation of pretraining as well as the benefits of finetuning for tackling covariate shift problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Instabilities of Offline RL with Pre-Trained Neural Representation

In offline reinforcement learning (RL), we seek to utilize offline data to evaluate (or learn) policies in scenarios where the data are collected from a distribution that substantially differs from that of the target policy to be evaluated. Recent theoretical advances have shown that such sample-efficient offline RL is indeed possible provided certain strong representational conditions hold, else there are lower bounds exhibiting exponential error amplification (in the problem horizon) unless the data collection distribution has only a mild distribution shift relative to the target policy. This work studies these issues from an empirical perspective to gauge how stable offline RL methods are. In particular, our methodology explores these ideas when using features from pre-trained neural networks, in the hope that these representations are powerful enough to permit sample efficient offline RL. Through extensive experiments on a range of tasks, we see that substantial error amplification does occur even when using such pre-trained representations (trained on the same task itself); we find offline RL is stable only under extremely mild distribution shift. The implications of these results, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective, are that successful offline RL (where we seek to go beyond the low distribution shift regime) requires substantially stronger conditions beyond those which suffice for successful supervised learning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is a Good Representation Sufficient for Sample Efficient Reinforcement Learning?

Modern deep learning methods provide effective means to learn good representations. However, is a good representation itself sufficient for sample efficient reinforcement learning? This question has largely been studied only with respect to (worst-case) approximation error, in the more classical approximate dynamic programming literature. With regards to the statistical viewpoint, this question is largely unexplored, and the extant body of literature mainly focuses on conditions which permit sample efficient reinforcement learning with little understanding of what are necessary conditions for efficient reinforcement learning. This work shows that, from the statistical viewpoint, the situation is far subtler than suggested by the more traditional approximation viewpoint, where the requirements on the representation that suffice for sample efficient RL are even more stringent. Our main results provide sharp thresholds for reinforcement learning methods, showing that there are hard limitations on what constitutes good function approximation (in terms of the dimensionality of the representation), where we focus on natural representational conditions relevant to value-based, model-based, and policy-based learning. These lower bounds highlight that having a good (value-based, model-based, or policy-based) representation in and of itself is insufficient for efficient reinforcement learning, unless the quality of this approximation passes certain hard thresholds. Furthermore, our lower bounds also imply exponential separations on the sample complexity between 1) value-based learning with perfect representation and value-based learning with a good-but-not-perfect representation, 2) value-based learning and policy-based learning, 3) policy-based learning and supervised learning and 4) reinforcement learning and imitation learning.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is Long Horizon Reinforcement Learning More Difficult Than Short Horizon Reinforcement Learning?

Learning to plan for long horizons is a central challenge in episodic reinforcement learning problems. A fundamental question is to understand how the difficulty of the problem scales as the horizon increases. Here the natural measure of sample complexity is a normalized one: we are interested in the number of episodes it takes to provably discover a policy whose value is $\varepsilon$ near to that of the optimal value, where the value is measured by the normalized cumulative reward in each episode. In a COLT 2018 open problem, Jiang and Agarwal conjectured that, for tabular, episodic reinforcement learning problems, there exists a sample complexity lower bound which exhibits a polynomial dependence on the horizon -- a conjecture which is consistent with all known sample complexity upper bounds. This work refutes this conjecture, proving that tabular, episodic reinforcement learning is possible with a sample complexity that scales only logarithmically with the planning horizon. In other words, when the values are appropriately normalized (to lie in the unit interval), this results shows that long horizon RL is no more difficult than short horizon RL, at least in a minimax sense. Our analysis introduces two ideas: (i) the construction of an $\varepsilon$-net for optimal policies whose log-covering number scales only logarithmically with the planning horizon, and (ii) the Online Trajectory Synthesis algorithm, which adaptively evaluates all policies in a given policy class using sample complexity that scales with the log-covering number of the given policy class. Both may be of independent interest.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Nonstochastic Control Problem

We consider the problem of controlling an unknown linear dynamical system in the presence of (nonstochastic) adversarial perturbations and adversarial convex loss functions. In contrast to classical control, the a priori determination of an optimal controller here is hindered by the latter's dependence on the yet unknown perturbations and costs. Instead, we measure regret against an optimal linear policy in hindsight, and give the first efficient algorithm that guarantees a sublinear regret bound, scaling as T^{2/3}, in this setting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access