Roy Frostig

dblp:136/9091 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
13ranked-venue papers
4as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-1055-3261ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 12 · 4 first-author · 2 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 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
12 papers
Learning theory · 35% Optimization for machine learning · 21% Deep learning architectures and training · 16%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Compilers and program optimization · 50% Programming languages and type systems · 38% Operating systems · 12%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Algorithms and data structures · 57% Mathematical optimization · 43%

Topics — the 30 heaviest of 35, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory
statistical learning theory
0.822024
Learning from many trajectories · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Competing with the Empirical Risk Minimizer in a Single Pass · COLT 2015
Machine learning › Learning theory
generalization
0.822019
The advantages of multiple classes for reducing overfitting from test set reuse · ICML 2019
Open Problem: How fast can a multiclass test set be overfit? · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory › statistical learning theory › non-i.i.d. learning
learning with dependent data
0.812024
Learning from many trajectories · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Machine learning › Learning theory › classification
multiclass classification
0.822019
The advantages of multiple classes for reducing overfitting from test set reuse · ICML 2019
Open Problem: How fast can a multiclass test set be overfit? · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
regression
0.812024
Learning from many trajectories · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Compilers and program optimization
automatic differentiation
0.712023
You Only Linearize Once: Tangents Transpose to Gradients · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023
Programming languages and type systems › type systems › substructural type systems
linear types
0.712023
You Only Linearize Once: Tangents Transpose to Gradients · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
bilevel optimization
0.612022
Efficient and Modular Implicit Differentiation · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
hyperparameter optimization
0.612022
Efficient and Modular Implicit Differentiation · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
implicit differentiation
0.612022
Efficient and Modular Implicit Differentiation · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Learning theory
empirical risk minimization
0.422015
Un-regularizing: approximate proximal point and faster stochastic algorithms for empirical risk minimization · ICML 2015
Competing with the Empirical Risk Minimizer in a Single Pass · COLT 2015
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
stochastic optimization
0.422015
Un-regularizing: approximate proximal point and faster stochastic algorithms for empirical risk minimization · ICML 2015
Competing with the Empirical Risk Minimizer in a Single Pass · COLT 2015
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › training dynamics
batch size scaling
0.412019
Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism on Neural Network Training · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › distributed training
data parallel training
0.412019
Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism on Neural Network Training · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
distributed training
0.412019
Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism on Neural Network Training · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training › training optimization
large-batch training
0.412019
Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism on Neural Network Training · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2019
Machine learning › Learning theory
overfitting
0.412019
Open Problem: How fast can a multiclass test set be overfit? · COLT 2019
Machine learning › Learning paradigms › weakly supervised learning
indirect supervision
0.212016
Estimation from Indirect Supervision with Linear Moments · ICML 2016
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
neural network expressivity
0.212016
Toward Deeper Understanding of Neural Networks: The Power of Initialization and a Dual View on Expressivity · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Kernel, tree and ensemble methods › linear model
principal component regression
0.212016
Principal Component Projection Without Principal Component Analysis · ICML 2016
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
random neural network
0.212016
Toward Deeper Understanding of Neural Networks: The Power of Initialization and a Dual View on Expressivity · NIPS 2016
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
structured prediction
0.212016
Estimation from Indirect Supervision with Linear Moments · ICML 2016
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
weight initialization
0.212016
Toward Deeper Understanding of Neural Networks: The Power of Initialization and a Dual View on Expressivity · NIPS 2016
Algorithms and data structures
numerical linear algebra
0.212016
Principal Component Projection Without Principal Component Analysis · ICML 2016
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
sequence modeling
0.212024
Learning from many trajectories · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024
Machine learning › Time series and sequential data
streaming data
0.212015
Competing with the Empirical Risk Minimizer in a Single Pass · COLT 2015
Operating systems › fault tolerance
checkpoint and rollback
0.212023
You Only Linearize Once: Tangents Transpose to Gradients · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023
Compilers and program optimization
partial evaluation
0.212023
You Only Linearize Once: Tangents Transpose to Gradients · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2023
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
graphical models
0.212014
Simple MAP Inference via Low-Rank Relaxations · NIPS 2014
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
MAP inference
0.212014
Simple MAP Inference via Low-Rank Relaxations · NIPS 2014

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

unzipping · 0.7transposition · 0.7forward-mode AD · 0.7implicit function theorem · 0.6automatic differentiation · 0.6ridge regression · 0.5polynomial approximation · 0.5method of moments · 0.5convex optimization · 0.5statistical estimation · 0.4mini-batch gradient descent · 0.4metaparameter tuning · 0.4adaptive data analysis · 0.4low-rank relaxation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Learning from many trajectories
abstract
We initiate a study of supervised learning from many independent sequences ("trajectories") of non-independent covariates, reflecting tasks in sequence modeling, control, and reinforcement learning. Conceptually, our multi-trajectory setup sits between two traditional settings in statistical learning theory: learning from independent examples and learning from a single auto-correlated sequence. Our conditions for efficient learning generalize the former setting---trajectories must be non-degenerate in ways that extend standard requirements for independent examples. Notably, we do not require that trajectories be ergodic, long, nor strictly stable. For linear least-squares regression, given $n$-dimensional examples produced by $m$ trajectories, each of length $T$, we observe a notable change in statistical efficiency as the number of trajectories increases from a few (namely $m \lesssim n$) to many (namely $m \gtrsim n$). Specifically, we establish that the worst-case error rate of this problem is $\Theta(n / m T)$ whenever $m \gtrsim n$. Meanwhile, when $m \lesssim n$, we establish a (sharp) lower bound of $\Omega(n^2 / m^2 T)$ on the worst-case error rate, realized by a simple, marginally unstable linear dynamical system. A key upshot is that, in domains where trajectories regularly reset, the error rate eventually behaves as if all of the examples were independent, drawn from their marginals. As a corollary of our analysis, we also improve guarantees for the linear system identification problem.
Stephen Tu, Roy Frostig, Mahdi Soltanolkotabi
J. Mach. Learn. Res.2
2023 You Only Linearize Once: Tangents Transpose to Gradients
abstract
Automatic differentiation (AD) is conventionally understood as a family of distinct algorithms, rooted in two “modes”—forward and reverse—which are typically presented (and implemented) separately. Can there be only one? Following up on the AD systems developed in the JAX and Dex projects, we formalize a decomposition of reverse-mode AD into (i) forward-mode AD followed by (ii) unzipping the linear and non-linear parts and then (iii) transposition of the linear part. To that end, we define a (substructurally) linear type system that can prove a class of functions are (algebraically) linear. Our main results are that forward-mode AD produces such linear functions, and that we can unzip and transpose any such linear function, conserving cost, size, and linearity. Composing these three transformations recovers reverse-mode AD. This decomposition also sheds light on checkpointing, which emerges naturally from a free choice in unzipping let expressions. As a corollary, checkpointing techniques are applicable to general-purpose partial evaluation, not just AD. We hope that our formalization will lead to a deeper understanding of automatic differentiation and that it will simplify implementations, by separating the concerns of differentiation proper from the concerns of gaining efficiency (namely, separating the derivative computation from the act of running it backward).
Alexey Radul, Adam Paszke, Roy Frostig, Matthew J. Johnson 0002, Dougal Maclaurin
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.3
2022 Efficient and Modular Implicit Differentiation
abstract
Automatic differentiation (autodiff) has revolutionized machine learning. Itallows to express complex computations by composing elementary ones in creativeways and removes the burden of computing their derivatives by hand. Morerecently, differentiation of optimization problem solutions has attractedwidespread attention with applications such as optimization layers, and inbi-level problems such as hyper-parameter optimization and meta-learning.However, so far, implicit differentiation remained difficult to use forpractitioners, as it often required case-by-case tedious mathematicalderivations and implementations. In this paper, we proposeautomatic implicit differentiation, an efficientand modular approach for implicit differentiation of optimization problems. Inour approach, the user defines directly in Python a function $F$ capturing theoptimality conditions of the problem to be differentiated. Once this is done, weleverage autodiff of $F$ and the implicit function theorem to automaticallydifferentiate the optimization problem. Our approach thus combines the benefitsof implicit differentiation and autodiff. It is efficient as it can be added ontop of any state-of-the-art solver and modular as the optimality conditionspecification is decoupled from the implicit differentiation mechanism. We showthat seemingly simple principles allow to recover many existing implicitdifferentiation methods and create new ones easily. We demonstrate the ease offormulating and solving bi-level optimization problems using our framework. Wealso showcase an application to the sensitivity analysis of molecular dynamics.
Mathieu Blondel, Quentin Berthet, Marco Cuturi, Roy Frostig, Stephan Hoyer, Felipe Llinares-López, Fabian Pedregosa, Jean-Philippe Vert
NeurIPS4
2019 Open Problem: How fast can a multiclass test set be overfit?
abstract
We ask how many measurements of the accuracy on a multiclass benchmark are needed to achieve a given amount of overfitting.
Vitaly Feldman, Roy Frostig, Moritz Hardt
COLT2
2019 The advantages of multiple classes for reducing overfitting from test set reuse
abstract
Excessive reuse of holdout data can lead to overfitting. However, there is little concrete evidence of significant overfitting due to holdout reuse in popular multiclass benchmarks today. Known results show that, in the worst-case, revealing the accuracy of $k$ adaptively chosen classifiers on a data set of size $n$ allows to create a classifier with bias of $\Theta(\sqrt{k/n})$ for any binary prediction problem. We show a new upper bound of $\tilde O(\max\{\sqrt{k\log(n)/(mn)}, k/n\})$ on the worst-case bias that any attack can achieve in a prediction problem with $m$ classes. Moreover, we present an efficient attack that achieve a bias of $\Omega(\sqrt{k/(m^2 n)})$ and improves on previous work for the binary setting ($m=2$). We also present an inefficient attack that achieves a bias of $\tilde\Omega(k/n)$. Complementing our theoretical work, we give new practical attacks to stress-test multiclass benchmarks by aiming to create as large a bias as possible with a given number of queries. Our experiments show that the additional uncertainty of prediction with a large number of classes indeed mitigates the effect of our best attacks.
Vitaly Feldman, Roy Frostig, Moritz Hardt
ICML2
2019 Measuring the Effects of Data Parallelism on Neural Network Training
abstract
Recent hardware developments have dramatically increased the scale of data parallelism available for neural network training. Among the simplest ways to harness next-generation hardware is to increase the batch size in standard mini-batch neural network training algorithms. In this work, we aim to experimentally characterize the effects of increasing the batch size on training time, as measured by the number of steps necessary to reach a goal out-of-sample error. We study how this relationship varies with the training algorithm, model, and data set, and find extremely large variation between workloads. Along the way, we show that disagreements in the literature on how batch size affects model quality can largely be explained by differences in metaparameter tuning and compute budgets at different batch sizes. We find no evidence that larger batch sizes degrade out-of-sample performance. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results on efforts to train neural networks much faster in the future. Our experimental data is publicly available as a database of 71,638,836 loss measurements taken over the course of training for 168,160 individual models across 35 workloads.
Christopher J. Shallue, Jaehoon Lee 0001, Joseph M. Antognini, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Roy Frostig, George E. Dahl
J. Mach. Learn. Res.5
2016 Principal Component Projection Without Principal Component Analysis
abstract
We show how to efficiently project a vector onto the top principal components of a matrix, *without explicitly computing these components*. Specifically, we introduce an iterative algorithm that provably computes the projection using few calls to any black-box routine for ridge regression. By avoiding explicit principal component analysis (PCA), our algorithm is the first with no runtime dependence on the number of top principal components. We show that it can be used to give a fast iterative method for the popular principal component regression problem, giving the first major runtime improvement over the naive method of combining PCA with regression. To achieve our results, we first observe that ridge regression can be used to obtain a "smooth projection" onto the top principal components. We then sharpen this approximation to true projection using a low-degree polynomial approximation to the matrix step function. Step function approximation is a topic of long-term interest in scientific computing. We extend prior theory by constructing polynomials with simple iterative structure and rigorously analyzing their behavior under limited precision.
Roy Frostig, Cameron Musco, Christopher Musco, Aaron Sidford
ICML1
2016 Estimation from Indirect Supervision with Linear Moments
abstract
In structured prediction problems where we have indirect supervision of the output, maximum marginal likelihood faces two computational obstacles: non-convexity of the objective and intractability of even a single gradient computation. In this paper, we bypass both obstacles for a class of what we call linear indirectly-supervised problems. Our approach is simple: we solve a linear system to estimate sufficient statistics of the model, which we then use to estimate parameters via convex optimization. We analyze the statistical properties of our approach and show empirically that it is effective in two settings: learning with local privacy constraints and learning from low-cost count-based annotations.
Aditi Raghunathan, Roy Frostig, John C. Duchi, Percy Liang
ICML2
2016 Toward Deeper Understanding of Neural Networks: The Power of Initialization and a Dual View on Expressivity
abstract
We develop a general duality between neural networks and compositional kernel Hilbert spaces. We introduce the notion of a computation skeleton, an acyclic graph that succinctly describes both a family of neural networks and a kernel space. Random neural networks are generated from a skeleton through node replication followed by sampling from a normal distribution to assign weights. The kernel space consists of functions that arise by compositions, averaging, and non-linear transformations governed by the skeleton's graph topology and activation functions. We prove that random networks induce representations which approximate the kernel space. In particular, it follows that random weight initialization often yields a favorable starting point for optimization despite the worst-case intractability of training neural networks.
Amit Daniely, Roy Frostig, Yoram Singer
NIPS2
2015 Competing with the Empirical Risk Minimizer in a Single Pass
abstract
In many estimation problems, e.g. linear and logistic regression, we wish to minimize an unknown objective given only unbiased samples of the objective function. Furthermore, we aim to achieve this using as few samples as possible. In the absence of computational constraints, the minimizer of a sample average of observed data – commonly referred to as either the empirical risk minimizer (ERM) or the M-estimator – is widely regarded as the estimation strategy of choice due to its desirable statistical convergence properties. Our goal in this work is to perform as well as the ERM, on \emphevery problem, while minimizing the use of computational resources such as running time and space usage. We provide a simple streaming algorithm which, under standard regularity assumptions on the underlying problem, enjoys the following properties: \beginenumerate \item The algorithm can be implemented in linear time with a single pass of the observed data, using space linear in the size of a single sample. \item The algorithm achieves the same statistical rate of convergence as the empirical risk minimizer on every problem, even considering constant factors. \item The algorithm’s performance depends on the initial error at a rate that decreases super-polynomially. \item The algorithm is easily parallelizable. \endenumerate Moreover, we quantify the (finite-sample) rate at which the algorithm becomes competitive with the ERM.
Roy Frostig, Rong Ge 0001, Sham M. Kakade, Aaron Sidford
COLT1
2015 Un-regularizing: approximate proximal point and faster stochastic algorithms for empirical risk minimization
abstract
We develop a family of accelerated stochastic algorithms that optimize sums of convex functions. Our algorithms improve upon the fastest running time for empirical risk minimization (ERM), and in particular linear least-squares regression, across a wide range of problem settings. To achieve this, we establish a framework, based on the classical proximal point algorithm, useful for accelerating recent fast stochastic algorithms in a black-box fashion. Empirically, we demonstrate that the resulting algorithms exhibit notions of stability that are advantageous in practice. Both in theory and in practice, the provided algorithms reap the computational benefits of adding a large strongly convex regularization term, without incurring a corresponding bias to the original ERM problem.
Roy Frostig, Rong Ge 0001, Sham M. Kakade, Aaron Sidford
ICML1
2014 Simple MAP Inference via Low-Rank Relaxations
Roy Frostig, Sida I. Wang, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning
NIPS1
2013 Semantic Parsing on Freebase from Question-Answer Pairs
abstract
In this paper, we train a semantic parser that scales up to Freebase.Instead of relying on annotated logical forms, which is especially expensive to obtain at large scale, we learn from question-answer pairs.The main challenge in this setting is narrowing down the huge number of possible logical predicates for a given question.We tackle this problem in two ways: First, we build a coarse mapping from phrases to predicates using a knowledge base and a large text corpus.Second, we use a bridging operation to generate additional predicates based on neighboring predicates.On the dataset of Cai and Yates (2013), despite not having annotated logical forms, our system outperforms their state-of-the-art parser.Additionally, we collected a more realistic and challenging dataset of question-answer pairs and improves over a natural baseline.
Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, Percy Liang
EMNLP3