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

Daniel Zink

dblp:11/1068 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3Theory of computation · 2

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.

Theoretical computer science
5 papers
Mathematical optimization · 85% Computational complexity · 9% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 5%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Optimization for machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 18 heaviest of 18, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization
1.032019
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Conditional Accelerated Lazy Stochastic Gradient Descent · ICML 2017
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods
conditional gradient method
0.722019
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization › linear programming relaxation
extended formulations
0.522016
The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP · SODA 2016
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning › constrained optimization
frank-wolfe algorithm
0.412019
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Mathematical optimization
continuous optimization
0.312017
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization
frank-wolfe algorithm
0.312017
Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization › convex optimization › first-order methods
projection-free optimization
0.312017
Conditional Accelerated Lazy Stochastic Gradient Descent · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization › stochastic optimization › stochastic gradient methods
stochastic gradient descent
0.312017
Conditional Accelerated Lazy Stochastic Gradient Descent · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization
stochastic optimization
0.312017
Conditional Accelerated Lazy Stochastic Gradient Descent · ICML 2017
Mathematical optimization
linear programming
0.212016
The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP · SODA 2016
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
matching
0.212016
The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP · SODA 2016
Computational complexity
proof complexity
0.212016
The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP · SODA 2016
Mathematical optimization
semidefinite programming
0.212016
The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP · SODA 2016
Computational complexity
hardness of approximation
0.212015
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015
Mathematical optimization › linear programming
linear programming formulations
0.212015
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015
Mathematical optimization › semidefinite programming
semidefinite programming formulation
0.212015
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation
0.112015
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015
Mathematical optimization
combinatorial optimization
0.112015
Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs · STOC 2015

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

separation oracle · 1.0linear optimization oracle · 1.0stochastic first-order oracle · 0.3lazy gradient descent · 0.3frank-wolfe · 0.3semidefinite programming · 0.2lasserre relaxation · 0.2reduction · 0.2factorization theorem · 0.2PCP theorem · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms
abstract
Conditional gradient algorithms (also often called Frank-Wolfe algorithms) are popular due to their simplicity of only requiring a linear optimization oracle and more recently they also gained significant traction for online learning. While simple in principle, in many cases the actual implementation of the linear optimization oracle is costly. We show a general method to lazify various conditional gradient algorithms, which in actual computations leads to several orders of magnitude of speedup in wall-clock time. This is achieved by using a faster separation oracle instead of a linear optimization oracle, relying only on few linear optimization oracle calls.
Gábor Braun, Sebastian Pokutta, Daniel Zink
J. Mach. Learn. Res.3
2017 Lazifying Conditional Gradient Algorithms
abstract
Conditional gradient algorithms (also often called Frank-Wolfe algorithms) are popular due to their simplicity of only requiring a linear optimization oracle and more recently they also gained significant traction for online learning. While simple in principle, in many cases the actual implementation of the linear optimization oracle is costly. We show a general method to lazify various conditional gradient algorithms, which in actual computations leads to several orders of magnitude of speedup in wall-clock time. This is achieved by using a faster separation oracle instead of a linear optimization oracle, relying only on few linear optimization oracle calls.
Gábor Braun, Sebastian Pokutta, Daniel Zink
ICML3
2017 Conditional Accelerated Lazy Stochastic Gradient Descent
abstract
In this work we introduce a conditional accelerated lazy stochastic gradient descent algorithm with optimal number of calls to a stochastic first-order oracle and convergence rate $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ improving over the projection-free, Online Frank-Wolfe based stochastic gradient descent of (Hazan and Kale, 2012) with convergence rate $O(1/\epsilon^4)$.
Guanghui Lan, Sebastian Pokutta, Yi Zhou 0015, Daniel Zink
ICML4
2016 The matching problem has no small symmetric SDP
abstract
Yannakakis [27, 26] showed that the matching problem does not have a small symmetric linear program. Rothvoß [23] recently proved that any, not necessarily symmetric, linear program also has exponential size. It is natural to ask whether the matching problem can be expressed compactly in a framework such as semidefinite programming (SDP) that is more powerful than linear programming but still allows efficient optimization. We answer this question negatively for symmetric SDPs: any symmetric SDP for the matching problem has exponential size. We also show that an O(k)-round Lasserre SDP relaxation for the asymmetric metric traveling salesperson problem yields at least as good an approximation as any symmetric SDP relaxation of size nk. The key technical ingredient underlying both these results is an upper bound on the degree needed to derive polynomial identities that hold over the space of matchings or traveling salesperson tours.
Gábor Braun, Jonah Brown-Cohen, Arefin Huq, Sebastian Pokutta, Prasad Raghavendra, Aurko Roy, Benjamin Weitz, Daniel Zink
SODA8
2015 Inapproximability of Combinatorial Problems via Small LPs and SDPs
abstract
Motivated by [12], we provide a framework for studying the size of linear programming formulations as well as semidefinite programming formulations of combinatorial optimization problems without encoding them first as linear programs. This is done via a factorization theorem for the optimization problem itself (and not a specific encoding of such). As a result we define a consistent reduction mechanism that degrades approximation factors in a controlled fashion and which, at the same time, is compatible with approximate linear and semidefinite programming formulations. Moreover, our reduction mechanism is a minor restriction of classical reductions establishing inapproximability in the context of PCP theorems. As a consequence we establish strong linear programming inapproximability (for LPs with a polynomial number of constraints) for several problems that are not 0/1-CSPs: we obtain a 3/2-epsilon inapproximability for Vertex Cover (which is not of the CSP type) answering an open question in [12], we answer a weak version of our sparse graph conjecture posed in [6] showing an inapproximability factor of 1/2+ε for bounded degree IndependentSet, and we establish inapproximability of MaxMULTICUT (a non-binary CSP). In the case of SDPs, we obtain relative inapproximability results for these problems.
Gábor Braun, Sebastian Pokutta, Daniel Zink
STOC3