Stability and Convergence Trade-Off of Iterative Optimization Algorithms
summary
Paper proves a quantitative trade-off between algorithmic stability and optimization convergence, using jackknife-style data perturbations, Le Cam minimax lower bounds and empirical plots on logistic regression. Stability upper bounds show stability scales linearly with T for gradient descent but scales as T^2 for Nesterov/accelerated and heavy‑ball (quadratic or piecewise‑quadratic losses), so early stopping choices differ: T ≈ √n for GD versus T ≈ n1/4 for accelerated methods to reach the same estimation error. Empirically stability tracks test error on large problems while uniform bounds do not.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (20)
- 0:00Intro
- 1:24Stability of Knowledge
- 2:37Stability Principle
- 4:54Iterative Learning Algorithms
- 6:58Supervised Learning Setting
- 7:51Excess Risk Decomposition
- 9:53Generalization error bounds
- 10:51Algorithmic stability
- 11:20Main Results (Tradeoff)
- 12:27Convergence Rate and Stability Rate
- 12:40Tradeoff for GD and NAG
- 15:14Convergence Lower Bound
- 16:01Types of Lower Bound
- 16:58Case study: Gradient Descent
- 17:44Stability and Convergence Trade-off under Convex Smooth Loss
- 18:09Outline
- 19:36Stability vs. Uniform Convergence
- 20:18Small-scale Logistic regression
- 21:42Large-scale Logistic regression
- 23:18Summary
related talks
01h 18mOptimization I
13mNon-Parametric Convergence Rates for Plain Vanilla Stochastic Gradient Descent
01h 01mRobustness, Stochastics, Uncertainty 2
01h 23mImplicit Regularization II
05mNon-monotonic convergence of gradient descent with large stepsize
01h 07mOptimization Crash Course (continued)
41mGeneralization Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithms
58mContinuous Methods 2
