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

Idan Amir

dblp:259/2177 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
5as first author
4since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 5 first-author · 4 since 2021

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
5 papers
Learning theory · 62% Optimization for machine learning · 22% Reinforcement learning · 16%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 11 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization bounds
1.632022
Thinking Outside the Ball: Optimal Learning with Gradient Descent for Generalized Linear Stochastic Convex Optimization · NeurIPS 2022
Never Go Full Batch (in Stochastic Convex Optimization) · NeurIPS 2021
SGD Generalizes Better Than GD (And Regularization Doesn't Help) · COLT 2021
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › convex optimization
stochastic convex optimization
1.122022
Thinking Outside the Ball: Optimal Learning with Gradient Descent for Generalized Linear Stochastic Convex Optimization · NeurIPS 2022
Never Go Full Batch (in Stochastic Convex Optimization) · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
regret bounds
1.022022
Better Best of Both Worlds Bounds for Bandits with Switching Costs · NeurIPS 2022
Prediction with Corrupted Expert Advice · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-armed bandit
bandits with switching costs
0.612022
Better Best of Both Worlds Bounds for Bandits with Switching Costs · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-armed bandit
0.612022
Better Best of Both Worlds Bounds for Bandits with Switching Costs · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Learning theory › generalization bounds
uniform convergence
0.612022
Thinking Outside the Ball: Optimal Learning with Gradient Descent for Generalized Linear Stochastic Convex Optimization · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic gradient descent
0.512021
SGD Generalizes Better Than GD (And Regularization Doesn't Help) · COLT 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning
0.412020
Prediction with Corrupted Expert Advice · NeurIPS 2020
Machine learning › Learning theory › online learning
prediction with expert advice
0.412020
Prediction with Corrupted Expert Advice · NeurIPS 2020
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization
0.112021
SGD Generalizes Better Than GD (And Regularization Doesn't Help) · COLT 2021
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization
stochastic convex optimization
0.112021
SGD Generalizes Better Than GD (And Regularization Doesn't Help) · COLT 2021

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

gradient descent · 1.1stability analysis · 1.0generalization analysis · 1.0minimax analysis · 0.6lower bounds · 0.6early stopping · 0.6mirror descent · 0.5online mirror descent · 0.4multiplicative weights · 0.4follow-the-regularized-leader · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Better Best of Both Worlds Bounds for Bandits with Switching Costs
abstract
We study best-of-both-worlds algorithms for bandits with switching cost, recently addressed by Rouyer et al., 2021. We introduce a surprisingly simple and effective algorithm that simultaneously achieves minimax optimal regret bound (up to logarithmic factors) of $\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3})$ in the oblivious adversarial setting and a bound of $\mathcal{O}(\min\{\log (T)/\Delta^2,T^{2/3}\})$ in the stochastically-constrained regime, both with (unit) switching costs, where $\Delta$ is the gap between the arms. In the stochastically constrained case, our bound improves over previous results due to Rouyer et al., 2021, that achieved regret of $\mathcal{O}(T^{1/3}/\Delta)$. We accompany our results with a lower bound showing that, in general, $\tilde{\mathcal{\Omega}}(\min\{1/\Delta^2,T^{2/3}\})$ switching cost regret is unavoidable in the stochastically-constrained case for algorithms with $\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3})$ worst-case switching cost regret.
Idan Amir, Guy Azov, Tomer Koren, Roi Livni
NeurIPS1
2022 Thinking Outside the Ball: Optimal Learning with Gradient Descent for Generalized Linear Stochastic Convex Optimization
abstract
We consider linear prediction with a convex Lipschitz loss, or more generally, stochastic convex optimization problems of generalized linear form, i.e.~where each instantaneous loss is a scalar convex function of a linear function. We show that in this setting, early stopped Gradient Descent (GD), without any explicit regularization or projection, ensures excess error at most $\varepsilon$ (compared to the best possible with unit Euclidean norm) with an optimal, up to logarithmic factors, sample complexity of $\tilde{O}(1/\varepsilon^2)$ and only $\tilde{O}(1/\varepsilon^2)$ iterations. This contrasts with general stochastic convex optimization, where $\Omega(1/\varepsilon^4)$ iterations are needed Amir et al. 2021. The lower iteration complexity is ensured by leveraging uniform convergence rather than stability. But instead of uniform convergence in a norm ball, which we show can guarantee suboptimal learning using $\Theta(1/\varepsilon^4)$ samples, we rely on uniform convergence in a distribution-dependent ball.
Idan Amir, Roi Livni, Nathan Srebro
NeurIPS1
2021 SGD Generalizes Better Than GD (And Regularization Doesn't Help)
abstract
We give a new separation result between the generalization performance of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and of full-batch gradient descent (GD) in the fundamental stochastic convex optimization model. While for SGD it is well-known that $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ iterations suffice for obtaining a solution with $\epsilon$ excess expected risk, we show that with the same number of steps GD may overfit and emit a solution with $\Omega(1)$ generalization error. Moreover, we show that in fact $\Omega(1/\epsilon^4)$ iterations are necessary for GD to match the generalization performance of SGD, which is also tight due to recent work by Bassily et al. (2020). We further discuss how regularizing the empirical risk minimized by GD essentially does not change the above result, and revisit the concepts of stability, implicit bias and the role of the learning algorithm in generalization.
Idan Amir, Tomer Koren, Roi Livni
COLT1
2021 Never Go Full Batch (in Stochastic Convex Optimization)
abstract
We study the generalization performance of $\text{\emph{full-batch}}$ optimization algorithms for stochastic convex optimization: these are first-order methods that only access the exact gradient of the empirical risk (rather than gradients with respect to individual data points), that include a wide range of algorithms such as gradient descent, mirror descent, and their regularized and/or accelerated variants. We provide a new separation result showing that, while algorithms such as stochastic gradient descent can generalize and optimize the population risk to within $\epsilon$ after $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ iterations, full-batch methods either need at least $\Omega(1/\epsilon^4)$ iterations or exhibit a dimension-dependent sample complexity.
Idan Amir, Yair Carmon, Tomer Koren, Roi Livni
NeurIPS1
2020 Prediction with Corrupted Expert Advice
abstract
We revisit the fundamental problem of prediction with expert advice, in a setting where the environment is benign and generates losses stochastically, but the feedback observed by the learner is subject to a moderate adversarial corruption. We prove that a variant of the classical Multiplicative Weights algorithm with decreasing step sizes achieves constant regret in this setting and performs optimally in a wide range of environments, regardless of the magnitude of the injected corruption. Our results reveal a surprising disparity between the often comparable Follow the Regularized Leader (FTRL) and Online Mirror Descent (OMD) frameworks: we show that for experts in the corrupted stochastic regime, the regret performance of OMD is in fact strictly inferior to that of FTRL.
Idan Amir, Idan Attias, Tomer Koren, Yishay Mansour, Roi Livni
NeurIPS1