Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Xiyu Zhai

dblp:203/8195 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
6 papers
Learning theory · 43% Kernel, tree and ensemble methods · 18% Optimization for machine learning · 18%

Topics — the 15 heaviest of 15, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods
kernel methods
0.822020
On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels · COLT 2020
Consistency of Interpolation with Laplace Kernels is a High-Dimensional Phenomenon · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory › over-parameterization › interpolation
minimum-norm interpolation
0.822020
On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels · COLT 2020
Consistency of Interpolation with Laplace Kernels is a High-Dimensional Phenomenon · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
0.822020
On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels · COLT 2020
Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › convergence guarantees
gradient descent convergence
0.822019
Gradient Descent Finds Global Minima of Deep Neural Networks · ICML 2019
Gradient Descent Provably Optimizes Over-parameterized Neural Networks · ICLR (Poster) 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
overparameterized neural network
0.522020
Gradient Descent Provably Optimizes Over-parameterized Neural Networks · ICLR (Poster) 2019
On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
non-convex optimization
0.522019
Gradient Descent Finds Global Minima of Deep Neural Networks · ICML 2019
Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › kernel methods
reproducing kernel hilbert space
0.412020
On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels · COLT 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical estimation
statistical consistency
0.412019
Consistency of Interpolation with Laplace Kernels is a High-Dimensional Phenomenon · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
training optimization
0.412019
Gradient Descent Finds Global Minima of Deep Neural Networks · ICML 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.312018
Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
PAC-Bayes bounds
0.312018
Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.312018
How Many Samples are Needed to Estimate a Convolutional Neural Network? · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › monte carlo methods › markov chain monte carlo › langevin dynamics
stochastic gradient langevin dynamics
0.312018
Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints · COLT 2018
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › convolutional neural network
residual network
0.112019
Gradient Descent Finds Global Minima of Deep Neural Networks · ICML 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
convolutional neural network
0.112018
How Many Samples are Needed to Estimate a Convolutional Neural Network? · NeurIPS 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

spectral analysis · 0.4random matrix theory · 0.4reproducing kernel hilbert space · 0.4over-parameterization theory · 0.4neural tangent kernel · 0.4gram matrix analysis · 0.4gradient descent · 0.4stability analysis · 0.3non-asymptotic analysis · 0.3PAC-Bayesian theory · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 On the Multiple Descent of Minimum-Norm Interpolants and Restricted Lower Isometry of Kernels
abstract
We study the risk of minimum-norm interpolants of data in Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces. Our upper bounds on the risk are of a multiple-descent shape for the various scalings of $d = n^{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$, for the input dimension $d$ and sample size $n$. Empirical evidence supports our finding that minimum-norm interpolants in RKHS can exhibit this unusual non-monotonicity in sample size; furthermore, locations of the peaks in our experiments match our theoretical predictions. Since gradient flow on appropriately initialized wide neural networks converges to a minimum-norm interpolant with respect to a certain kernel, our analysis also yields novel estimation and generalization guarantees for these over-parametrized models. At the heart of our analysis is a study of spectral properties of the random kernel matrix restricted to a filtration of eigen-spaces of the population covariance operator, and may be of independent interest.
Tengyuan Liang, Alexander Rakhlin, Xiyu Zhai
COLT3
2019 Consistency of Interpolation with Laplace Kernels is a High-Dimensional Phenomenon
abstract
We show that minimum-norm interpolation in the Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space corresponding to the Laplace kernel is not consistent if input dimension is constant. The lower bound holds for any choice of kernel bandwidth, even if selected based on data. The result supports the empirical observation that minimum-norm interpolation (that is, exact fit to training data) in RKHS generalizes well for some high-dimensional datasets, but not for low-dimensional ones.
Alexander Rakhlin, Xiyu Zhai
COLT2
2019 Gradient Descent Provably Optimizes Over-parameterized Neural Networks
Simon S. Du, Xiyu Zhai, Barnabás Póczos, Aarti Singh
ICLR (Poster)2
2019 Gradient Descent Finds Global Minima of Deep Neural Networks
abstract
Gradient descent finds a global minimum in training deep neural networks despite the objective function being non-convex. The current paper proves gradient descent achieves zero training loss in polynomial time for a deep over-parameterized neural network with residual connections (ResNet). Our analysis relies on the particular structure of the Gram matrix induced by the neural network architecture. This structure allows us to show the Gram matrix is stable throughout the training process and this stability implies the global optimality of the gradient descent algorithm. We further extend our analysis to deep residual convolutional neural networks and obtain a similar convergence result.
Simon S. Du, Jason D. Lee, Haochuan Li, Liwei Wang 0001, Xiyu Zhai
ICML5
2018 Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpoints
abstract
We study the generalization errors of \emph{non-convex} regularized ERM procedures using Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (SGLD). Two theories are proposed with non-asymptotic discrete-time analysis, using stability and PAC-Bayesian theory respectively. The stability-based theory obtains a bound of $O\left(\frac{1}{n}L\sqrt{\beta T_N}\right)$, where $L$ is Lipschitz parameter, $\beta$ is inverse temperature, and $T_N$ is the sum of step sizes. For PAC-Bayesian theory, though the bound has a slower $O(1/\sqrt{n})$ rate, the contribution of each step decays exponentially through time, and the uniform Lipschitz constant is also replaced by actual norms of gradients along the optimization trajectory. Our bounds have reasonable dependence on aggregated step sizes, and do not explicitly depend on dimensions, norms or other capacity measures of the parameter. The bounds characterize how the noises in the algorithm itself controls the statistical learning behavior in non-convex problems, without uniform convergence in the hypothesis space, which sheds light on the effect of training algorithms on the generalization error for deep neural networks.
Wenlong Mou, Liwei Wang 0001, Xiyu Zhai, Kai Zheng 0007
COLT3
2018 How Many Samples are Needed to Estimate a Convolutional Neural Network?
abstract
A widespread folklore for explaining the success of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) is that CNNs use a more compact representation than the Fully-connected Neural Network (FNN) and thus require fewer training samples to accurately estimate their parameters. We initiate the study of rigorously characterizing the sample complexity of estimating CNNs. We show that for an $m$-dimensional convolutional filter with linear activation acting on a $d$-dimensional input, the sample complexity of achieving population prediction error of $\epsilon$ is $\widetilde{O(m/\epsilon^2)$, whereas the sample-complexity for its FNN counterpart is lower bounded by $\Omega(d/\epsilon^2)$ samples. Since, in typical settings $m \ll d$, this result demonstrates the advantage of using a CNN. We further consider the sample complexity of estimating a one-hidden-layer CNN with linear activation where both the $m$-dimensional convolutional filter and the $r$-dimensional output weights are unknown. For this model, we show that the sample complexity is $\widetilde{O}\left((m+r)/\epsilon^2\right)$ when the ratio between the stride size and the filter size is a constant. For both models, we also present lower bounds showing our sample complexities are tight up to logarithmic factors. Our main tools for deriving these results are a localized empirical process analysis and a new lemma characterizing the convolutional structure. We believe that these tools may inspire further developments in understanding CNNs.
Simon S. Du, Yining Wang 0001, Xiyu Zhai, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Aarti Singh
NeurIPS3