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

Alex Kulesza

dblp:61/4512 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
39ranked-venue papers
9as first author
8since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 37 · 9 first-author · 8 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 5 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

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.

Network and information security
9 papers
Privacy and data protection · 94% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 6%
Artificial intelligence
19 papers
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 33% Learning theory · 26% Representation and self-supervised learning · 17%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
4 papers
Recommender systems · 56% Information retrieval · 29% Data mining · 8%
Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 30 heaviest of 52, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy
5.992026
Ripple Mechanisms for Discrete and Private Statistics · COLT 2026
Private Set Union with Multiple Contributions · NeurIPS 2025
Approximate Differential Privacy of the ℓ2 Mechanism · ICML 2025
Privacy and data protection › privacy analysis › privacy models
pure differential privacy
1.012026
Ripple Mechanisms for Discrete and Private Statistics · COLT 2026
Privacy and data protection › privacy analysis › privacy models
user-level differential privacy
0.922021
Learning with User-Level Privacy · NeurIPS 2021
Bounding User Contributions: A Bias-Variance Trade-off in Differential Privacy · ICML 2019
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › relaxed differential privacy
approximate differential privacy
0.912025
Approximate Differential Privacy of the ℓ2 Mechanism · ICML 2025
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › privacy mechanism design
instance-optimal mechanism
0.912025
Private Set Union with Multiple Contributions · NeurIPS 2025
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure multiparty computation › private set operations
private set union
0.912025
Private Set Union with Multiple Contributions · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › latent representation learning › state representation learning
predictive state representation
0.832018
Completing State Representations using Spectral Learning · NeurIPS 2018
Improving Predictive State Representations via Gradient Descent · AAAI 2016
Spectral Learning of Predictive State Representations with Insufficient Statistics · AAAI 2015
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › latent variable model
spectral learning
0.832018
Completing State Representations using Spectral Learning · NeurIPS 2018
Improving Predictive State Representations via Gradient Descent · AAAI 2016
Spectral Learning of Predictive State Representations with Insufficient Statistics · AAAI 2015
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › local differential privacy
mean estimation
0.812024
Mean Estimation in the Add-Remove Model of Differential Privacy · ICML 2024
Recommender systems
diversified recommendation
0.722019
A Tree-Based Method for Fast Repeated Sampling of Determinantal Point Processes · ICML 2019
Maximizing Induced Cardinality Under a Determinantal Point Process · NeurIPS 2018
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
private statistical estimation
0.712023
Subset-Based Instance Optimality in Private Estimation · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Learning theory
minimax optimality
0.512021
Learning with User-Level Privacy · NeurIPS 2021
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › privacy mechanism design
exponential mechanism
0.512021
Differentially Private Quantiles · ICML 2021
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › stochastic processes › point process
determinantal point process
0.542018
Near-Optimal MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2012
k-DPPs: Fixed-Size Determinantal Point Processes · ICML 2011
Structured Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2010
Mathematical optimization › submodular optimization
submodular maximization
0.522018
Maximizing Induced Cardinality Under a Determinantal Point Process · NeurIPS 2018
Near-Optimal MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2012
Information retrieval
diversified retrieval
0.412019
A Tree-Based Method for Fast Repeated Sampling of Determinantal Point Processes · ICML 2019
Privacy and data protection › privacy evaluation
privacy-utility tradeoff
0.412019
Bounding User Contributions: A Bias-Variance Trade-off in Differential Privacy · ICML 2019
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › latent representation learning
state representation learning
0.312018
Completing State Representations using Spectral Learning · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
model-based reinforcement learning
0.322016
Abstraction Selection in Model-based Reinforcement Learning · ICML 2015
The Dependence of Effective Planning Horizon on Model Accuracy · IJCAI 2016
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › reinforcement learning theory
effective horizon
0.212016
The Dependence of Effective Planning Horizon on Model Accuracy · IJCAI 2016
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
gradient-based learning
0.212016
Improving Predictive State Representations via Gradient Descent · AAAI 2016
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
MAP inference
0.222018
Near-Optimal MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2012
Maximizing Induced Cardinality Under a Determinantal Point Process · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › function approximation › representation learning for reinforcement learning
state abstraction
0.212015
Abstraction Selection in Model-based Reinforcement Learning · ICML 2015
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › parameter estimation
expectation-maximization
0.212014
Expectation-Maximization for Learning Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2014
Machine learning › Learning theory
online learning
0.222009
Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors · NIPS 2009
Multi-Class Confidence Weighted Algorithms · EMNLP 2009
Recommender systems
collaborative filtering
0.212014
Social collaborative retrieval · WSDM 2014
Information retrieval › interactive information retrieval › search interaction
collaborative information retrieval
0.212014
Social collaborative retrieval · WSDM 2014
Recommender systems
social recommendation
0.212014
Social collaborative retrieval · WSDM 2014
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models
graphical models
0.222012
Structured Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2010
Near-Optimal MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes · NIPS 2012
Data stream processing
quantile estimation
0.112021
Differentially Private Quantiles · ICML 2021

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

differential privacy · 2.1empirical risk minimization · 1.9greedy algorithm · 1.3ripple mechanisms · 1.0additive noise mechanisms · 1.0submodular approximation · 1.0utility ratio analysis · 0.9histogram prediction · 0.9differential privacy analysis · 0.9min-max optimal algorithm · 0.8hourglass mechanism · 0.8instance-optimality · 0.7instance optimality · 0.7utility function design · 0.5stochastic convex optimization · 0.5exponential mechanism · 0.5efficient implementation · 0.5tree-based sampling · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Ripple Mechanisms for Discrete and Private Statistics
abstract
We study \emph{ripple mechanisms} for pure differentially private computation of discrete statistics. For each of three natural statistics – sum, count, and vote – we construct an efficient instance of the ripple mechanism and show that it is often more accurate than the previous state of the art. We also prove that ripple mechanisms are, in some settings, optimal among all discrete pure differentially private additive noise mechanisms.
Matthew Joseph, Alex Kulesza, Alexander Yu
COLT2
2025 General Staircase Mechanisms for Optimal Differential Privacy
abstract
We derive the optimal differentially private additive noise mechanism for queries in $\mathbb{R}^d$ when sensitivity and error are defined by an arbitrary norm $||\cdot||_K$. The optimal mechanism is a generalization of the staircase mechanism, which is known to be optimal under the $\ell_1$ norm when $d \leq 2$; we extend the mechanism and its guarantee to arbitrary norms and dimensions, proving a conjecture of Geng et al. [2015] along the way. The generalized staircase mechanism we derive can be viewed as a refinement of the $K$-norm mechanism of Hardt and Talwar [2010] , with improvements particularly evident in the low-privacy regime as $\epsilon \to \infty$. We show how to implement the generalized staircase mechanism efficiently, given an efficient algorithm for sampling the unit $K$-norm ball, and demonstrate that it significantly reduces error in realistic settings, including under non-standard norms that are common in practice, and across a range of error metrics.
Alex Kulesza, Ananda Theertha Suresh
AISTATS1
2025 Approximate Differential Privacy of the ℓ2 Mechanism
Matthew Joseph, Alex Kulesza, Alexander Yu
ICML2
2025 Private Set Union with Multiple Contributions
abstract
In the private set union problem each user owns a bag of at most $k$ items (from some large universe of items), and we are interested in computing the union of the items in the bags of all of the users. This is trivial without privacy, but a differentially private algorithm must be careful about reporting items contained in only a small number of bags. We consider differentially private algorithms that always report a subset of the union, and define the utility of an algorithm to be the expected size of the subset that it reports. Because the achievable utility varies significantly with the dataset, we introduce the *utility ratio*, which normalizes utility by a dataset-specific upper bound and characterizes a mechanism by its lowest normalized utility across all datasets. We then develop algorithms with guaranteed utility ratios and complement them with bounds on the best possible utility ratio. Prior work has shown that a single algorithm can be simultaneously optimal for all datasets when $k=1$, but we show that instance-optimal algorithms do not exist when $k>1$, and characterize how performance degrades as $k$ grows. At the same time, we design a private algorithm that achieves the maximum possible utility, regardless of $k$, when the item histogram matches a prior prediction (for instance, from a previous data release) and degrades gracefully with the $L_\infty$ distance between the prediction and the actual histogram when the prediction is imperfect.
Travis Dick, Haim Kaplan, Alex Kulesza, Uri Stemmer, Ziteng Sun, Ananda Theertha Suresh
NeurIPS3
2024 Mean Estimation in the Add-Remove Model of Differential Privacy
abstract
Differential privacy is often studied under two different models of neighboring datasets: the add-remove model and the swap model. While the swap model is frequently used in the academic literature to simplify analysis, many practical applications rely on the more conservative add-remove model, where obtaining tight results can be difficult. Here, we study the problem of one-dimensional mean estimation under the add-remove model. We propose a new algorithm and show that it is min-max optimal, achieving the best possible constant in the leading term of the mean squared error for all $\epsilon$, and that this constant is the same as the optimal algorithm under the swap model. These results show that the add-remove and swap models give nearly identical errors for mean estimation, even though the add-remove model cannot treat the size of the dataset as public information. We also demonstrate empirically that our proposed algorithm yields at least a factor of two improvement in mean squared error over algorithms frequently used in practice. One of our main technical contributions is a new hourglass mechanism, which might be of independent interest in other scenarios.
Alex Kulesza, Ananda Theertha Suresh
ICML1
2023 Subset-Based Instance Optimality in Private Estimation
abstract
We propose a new definition of instance optimality for differentially private estimation algorithms. Our definition requires an optimal algorithm to compete, simultaneously for every dataset $D$, with the best private benchmark algorithm that (a) knows $D$ in advance and (b) is evaluated by its worst-case performance on large subsets of $D$. That is, the benchmark algorithm need not perform well when potentially extreme points are added to $D$; it only has to handle the removal of a small number of real data points that already exist. This makes our benchmark significantly stronger than those proposed in prior work. We nevertheless show, for real-valued datasets, how to construct private algorithms that achieve our notion of instance optimality when estimating a broad class of dataset properties, including means, quantiles, and $\ell_p$-norm minimizers. For means in particular, we provide a detailed analysis and show that our algorithm simultaneously matches or exceeds the asymptotic performance of existing algorithms under a range of distributional assumptions.
Travis Dick, Alex Kulesza, Ziteng Sun, Ananda Theertha Suresh
ICML2
2021 Differentially Private Quantiles
abstract
Quantiles are often used for summarizing and understanding data. If that data is sensitive, it may be necessary to compute quantiles in a way that is differentially private, providing theoretical guarantees that the result does not reveal private information. However, when multiple quantiles are needed, existing differentially private algorithms fare poorly: they either compute quantiles individually, splitting the privacy budget, or summarize the entire distribution, wasting effort. In either case the result is reduced accuracy. In this work we propose an instance of the exponential mechanism that simultaneously estimates exactly $m$ quantiles from $n$ data points while guaranteeing differential privacy. The utility function is carefully structured to allow for an efficient implementation that returns estimates of all $m$ quantiles in time $O(mn\log(n) + m^2n)$. Experiments show that our method significantly outperforms the current state of the art on both real and synthetic data while remaining efficient enough to be practical.
Jennifer Gillenwater, Matthew Joseph, Alex Kulesza
ICML3
2021 Learning with User-Level Privacy
abstract
We propose and analyze algorithms to solve a range of learning tasks under user-level differential privacy constraints. Rather than guaranteeing only the privacy of individual samples, user-level DP protects a user's entire contribution ($m \ge 1$ samples), providing more stringent but more realistic protection against information leaks. We show that for high-dimensional meanestimation, empirical risk minimization with smooth losses, stochastic convex optimization, and learning hypothesis classes with finite metric entropy, the privacy cost decreases as $O(1/\sqrt{m})$ as users provide more samples. In contrast, when increasing the number of users $n$, the privacy cost decreases at a faster $O(1/n)$ rate. We complement these results with lower bounds showing the minimax optimality of our algorithms for mean estimation and stochastic convex optimization. Our algorithms rely on novel techniques for private mean estimation in arbitrary dimension with error scaling as the concentration radius $\tau$ of the distribution rather than the entire range.
Daniel Levy 0002, Ziteng Sun, Kareem Amin 0002, Satyen Kale, Alex Kulesza, Mehryar Mohri, Ananda Theertha Suresh
NeurIPS5
2019 Bounding User Contributions: A Bias-Variance Trade-off in Differential Privacy
abstract
Differentially private learning algorithms protect individual participants in the training dataset by guaranteeing that their presence does not significantly change the resulting model. In order to make this promise, such algorithms need to know the maximum contribution that can be made by a single user: the more data an individual can contribute, the more noise will need to be added to protect them. While most existing analyses assume that the maximum contribution is known and fixed in advance{—}indeed, it is often assumed that each user contributes only a single example{—}we argue that in practice there is a meaningful choice to be made. On the one hand, if we allow users to contribute large amounts of data, we may end up adding excessive noise to protect a few outliers, even when the majority contribute only modestly. On the other hand, limiting users to small contributions keeps noise levels low at the cost of potentially discarding significant amounts of excess data, thus introducing bias. Here, we characterize this trade-off for an empirical risk minimization setting, showing that in general there is a “sweet spot” that depends on measurable properties of the dataset, but that there is also a concrete cost to privacy that cannot be avoided simply by collecting more data.
Kareem Amin 0002, Alex Kulesza, Andrés Muñoz Medina, Sergei Vassilvitskii
ICML2
2019 A Tree-Based Method for Fast Repeated Sampling of Determinantal Point Processes
abstract
It is often desirable in recommender systems and other information retrieval applications to provide diverse results, and determinantal point processes (DPPs) have become a popular way to capture the trade-off between the quality of individual results and the diversity of the overall set. However, sampling from a DPP is inherently expensive: if the underlying collection contains N items, then generating each DPP sample requires time linear in N following a one-time preprocessing phase. Additionally, results often need to be personalized to a user, but standard approaches to personalization invalidate the preprocessing, making personalized samples especially expensive. In this work we address both of these shortcomings. First, we propose a new algorithm for generating DPP samples in time logarithmic in N, following a slightly more expensive preprocessing phase. We then extend the algorithm to support arbitrary query-time feature weights, allowing us to generate samples customized to individual users while still retaining logarithmic runtime; experiments show our approach runs over 300 times faster than traditional DPP sampling on collections of 100,000 items for samples of size 10.
Jennifer Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Zelda Mariet, Sergei Vassilvitskii
ICML2
2019 Differentially Private Covariance Estimation
abstract
The covariance matrix of a dataset is a fundamental statistic that can be used for calculating optimum regression weights as well as in many other learning and data analysis settings. For datasets containing private user information, we often want to estimate the covariance matrix in a way that preserves differential privacy. While there are known methods for privately computing the covariance matrix, they all have one of two major shortcomings. Some, like the Gaussian mechanism, only guarantee (epsilon, delta)-differential privacy, leaving a non-trivial probability of privacy failure. Others give strong epsilon-differential privacy guarantees, but are impractical, requiring complicated sampling schemes, and tend to perform poorly on real data. In this work we propose a new epsilon-differentially private algorithm for computing the covariance matrix of a dataset that addresses both of these limitations. We show that it has lower error than existing state-of-the-art approaches, both analytically and empirically. In addition, the algorithm is significantly less complicated than other methods and can be efficiently implemented with rejection sampling.
Kareem Amin 0002, Travis Dick, Alex Kulesza, Andrés Muñoz Medina, Sergei Vassilvitskii
NeurIPS3
2018 Maximizing Induced Cardinality Under a Determinantal Point Process
abstract
Determinantal point processes (DPPs) are well-suited to recommender systems where the goal is to generate collections of diverse, high-quality items. In the existing literature this is usually formulated as finding the mode of the DPP (the so-called MAP set). However, the MAP objective inherently assumes that the DPP models "optimal" recommendation sets, and yet obtaining such a DPP is nontrivial when there is no ready source of example optimal sets. In this paper we advocate an alternative framework for applying DPPs to recommender systems. Our approach assumes that the DPP simply models user engagements with recommended items, which is more consistent with how DPPs for recommender systems are typically trained. With this assumption, we are able to formulate a metric that measures the expected number of items that a user will engage with. We formalize this optimization of this metric as the Maximum Induced Cardinality (MIC) problem. Although the MIC objective is not submodular, we show that it can be approximated by a submodular function, and that empirically it is well-optimized by a greedy algorithm.
Jennifer Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Sergei Vassilvitskii, Zelda Mariet
NeurIPS2
2018 Completing State Representations using Spectral Learning
abstract
A central problem in dynamical system modeling is state discovery—that is, finding a compact summary of the past that captures the information needed to predict the future. Predictive State Representations (PSRs) enable clever spectral methods for state discovery; however, while consistent in the limit of infinite data, these methods often suffer from poor performance in the low data regime. In this paper we develop a novel algorithm for incorporating domain knowledge, in the form of an imperfect state representation, as side information to speed spectral learning for PSRs. We prove theoretical results characterizing the relevance of a user-provided state representation, and design spectral algorithms that can take advantage of a relevant representation. Our algorithm utilizes principal angles to extract the relevant components of the representation, and is robust to misspecification. Empirical evaluation on synthetic HMMs, an aircraft identification domain, and a gene splice dataset shows that, even with weak domain knowledge, the algorithm can significantly outperform standard PSR learning.
Nan Jiang 0008, Alex Kulesza, Satinder Singh 0001
NeurIPS2
2016 Improving Predictive State Representations via Gradient Descent
abstract
Predictive state representations (PSRs) model dynamical systems using appropriately chosen predictions about future observations as a representation of the current state. In contrast to the hidden states posited by HMMs or RNNs, PSR states are directly observable in the training data; this gives rise to a moment-matching spectral algorithm for learning PSRs that is computationally efficient and statistically consistent when the model complexity matches that of the true system generating the data. In practice, however, model mismatch is inevitable and while spectral learning remains appealingly fast and simple it may fail to find optimal models. To address this problem, we investigate the use of gradient methods for improving spectrally-learned PSRs. We show that only a small amount of additional gradient optimization can lead to significant performance gains, and moreover that initializing gradient methods with the spectral learning solution yields better models in significantly less time than starting from scratch.
Nan Jiang 0008, Alex Kulesza, Satinder Singh 0001
AAAI2
2016 The Dependence of Effective Planning Horizon on Model Accuracy
Nan Jiang 0008, Alex Kulesza, Satinder Singh 0001, Richard L. Lewis
IJCAI2
2015 Spectral Learning of Predictive State Representations with Insufficient Statistics
abstract
Predictive state representations (PSRs) are models of dynamical systems that represent state as a vector of predictions about future observable events (tests) conditioned on past observed events (histories). If a practitioner selects finite sets of tests and histories that are known to be sufficient to completely capture the system, an exact PSR can be learned in polynomial time using spectral methods. However, most real-world systems are complex, and in practice computational constraints limit us to small sets of tests and histories which are therefore never truly sufficient. How, then, should we choose these sets? Existing theory offers little guidance here, and yet we show that the choice is highly consequential -- tests and histories selected at random or by a naive rule significantly underperform the best sets. In this paper we approach the problem both theoretically and empirically. While any fixed system can be represented by an infinite number of equivalent but distinct PSRs, we show that in the computationally unconstrained setting, where existing theory guarantees accurate predictions, the PSRs learned by spectral methods always satisfy a particular spectral bound. Adapting this idea, we propose a simple algorithmic technique to search for sets of tests and histories that approximately satisfy the bound while respecting computational limits. Empirically, our method significantly reduces prediction errors compared to standard spectral learning approaches.
Alex Kulesza, Nan Jiang 0008, Satinder Singh 0001
AAAI1
2015 Low-Rank Spectral Learning with Weighted Loss Functions
abstract
Kulesza et al. recently observed that low-rank spectral learning algorithms, which discard the smallest singular values of a moment matrix during training, can behave in unexpected ways, producing large errors even when the discarded singular values are arbitrarily small. In this paper we prove that when learning predictive state representations those problematic cases disappear if we introduce a particular weighted loss function and learn using sufficiently large sets of statistics; our main result is a bound on the loss of the learned low-rank model in terms of the singular values that are discarded. Practically speaking, this suggests that regardless of the model rank we should use the largest possible sets of statistics, and we show empirically that this is true on both synthetic and real-world domains.
Alex Kulesza, Nan Jiang 0008, Satinder Singh 0001
AISTATS1
2015 Information extraction from large multi-layer social networks
abstract
Social networks often encode community structure using multiple distinct types of links between nodes. In this paper we introduce a novel method to extract information from such multi-layer networks, where each type of link forms its own layer. Using the concept of Pareto optimality, community detection in this multi-layer setting is formulated as a multiple criterion optimization problem. We propose an algorithm for finding an approximate Pareto frontier containing a family of solutions. The power of this approach is demonstrated on a Twitter dataset, where the nodes are hashtags and the layers correspond to (1) behavioral edges connecting pairs of hashtags whose temporal profiles are similar and (2) relational edges connecting pairs of hashtags that appear in the same tweets.
Brandon Oselio, Alex Kulesza, Alfred O. Hero III
ICASSP2
2015 Abstraction Selection in Model-based Reinforcement Learning
abstract
State abstractions are often used to reduce the complexity of model-based reinforcement learning when only limited quantities of data are available. However, choosing the appropriate level of abstraction is an important problem in practice. Existing approaches have theoretical guarantees only under strong assumptions on the domain or asymptotically large amounts of data, but in this paper we propose a simple algorithm based on statistical hypothesis testing that comes with a finite-sample guarantee under assumptions on candidate abstractions. Our algorithm trades off the low approximation error of finer abstractions against the low estimation error of coarser abstractions, resulting in a loss bound that depends only on the quality of the best available abstraction and is polynomial in planning horizon.
Nan Jiang 0008, Alex Kulesza, Satinder Singh 0001
ICML2
2014 Low-Rank Spectral Learning
abstract
Spectral learning methods have recently been proposed as alternatives to slow, non-convex optimization algorithms like EM for a variety of probabilistic models in which hidden information must be inferred by the learner. These methods are typically controlled by a rank hyperparameter that sets the complexity of the model; when the model rank matches the true rank of the process generating the data, the resulting predictions are provably consistent and admit finite sample convergence bounds. However, in practice we usually do not know the true rank, and, in any event, from a computational and statistical standpoint it is likely to be prohibitively large. It is therefore of great practical interest to understand the behavior of low-rank spectral learning, where the model rank is less than the true rank. Counterintuitively, we show that even when the singular values omitted by lowering the rank are arbitrarily small, the resulting prediction errors can in fact be arbitrarily large. We identify two distinct possible causes for this bad behavior, and illustrate them with simple examples. We then show that these two causes are essentially complete: assuming that they do not occur, we can prove that the prediction error is bounded in terms of the magnitudes of the omitted singular values. We argue that the assumptions necessary for this result are relatively realistic, making low-rank spectral learning a viable option for many applications.
Alex Kulesza, N. Raj Rao, Satinder Singh 0001
AISTATS1
2014 A Repository of State of the Art and Competitive Baseline Summaries for Generic News Summarization
Kai Hong, John M. Conroy, Benoît Favre, Alex Kulesza, Ani Nenkova
LREC4
2014 Expectation-Maximization for Learning Determinantal Point Processes
Jennifer Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Emily B. Fox, Ben Taskar
NIPS2
2014 Social collaborative retrieval
abstract
Socially-based recommendation systems have recently attracted significant interest, and a number of studies have shown that social information can dramatically improve a system's predictions of user interests. Meanwhile, there are now many potential applications that involve aspects of both recommendation and information retrieval, and the task of collaborative retrieval---a combination of these two traditional problems---has recently been introduced. Successful collaborative retrieval requires overcoming severe data sparsity, making additional sources of information, such as social graphs, particularly valuable. In this paper we propose a new model for collaborative retrieval, and show that our algorithm outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches by incorporating information from social networks. We also provide empirical analyses of the ways in which cultural interests propagate along a social graph using a real-world music dataset.
Ko-Jen Hsiao, Alex Kulesza, Alfred O. Hero III
WSDM2
2013 Nystrom Approximation for Large-Scale Determinantal Processes
Raja Hafiz Affandi, Alex Kulesza, Emily B. Fox, Ben Taskar
AISTATS2
2013 Adaptive regularization of weight vectors
Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Mark Dredze
Mach. Learn.2
2012 Discovering Diverse and Salient Threads in Document Collections
Jennifer Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar
EMNLP-CoNLL2
2012 New ℌ∞ bounds for the recursive least squares algorithm exploiting input structure
abstract
The recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm is well known and has been widely used for many years. Most analyses of RLS have assumed statistical properties of the data or the noise process, but recent robust ℌ∞analyses have been used to bound the ratio of the performance of the algorithm to the total noise. In this paper, we provide an additive analysis bounding the difference between performance and noise. Our analysis provides additional convergence guarantees in general, and particular benefits for structured input data. We illustrate the analysis using human speech and white noise.
Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Mark Dredze
ICASSP2
2012 Near-Optimal MAP Inference for Determinantal Point Processes
abstract
Determinantal point processes (DPPs) have recently been proposed as computationally efficient probabilistic models of diverse sets for a variety of applications, including document summarization, image search, and pose estimation. Many DPP inference operations, including normalization and sampling, are tractable; however, finding the most likely configuration (MAP), which is often required in practice for decoding, is NP-hard, so we must resort to approximate inference. Because DPP probabilities are log-submodular, greedy algorithms have been used in the past with some empirical success; however, these methods only give approximation guarantees in the special case of DPPs with monotone kernels. In this paper we propose a new algorithm for approximating the MAP problem based on continuous techniques for submodular function maximization. Our method involves a novel continuous relaxation of the log-probability function, which, in contrast to the multilinear extension used for general submodular functions, can be evaluated and differentiated exactly and efficiently. We obtain a practical algorithm with a 1/4-approximation guarantee for a general class of non-monotone DPPs. Our algorithm also extends to MAP inference under complex polytope constraints, making it possible to combine DPPs with Markov random fields, weighted matchings, and other models. We demonstrate that our approach outperforms greedy methods on both synthetic and real-world data.
Jennifer Gillenwater, Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar
NIPS2
2012 Markov Determinantal Point Processes
Raja Hafiz Affandi, Alex Kulesza, Emily B. Fox
UAI2
2011 k-DPPs: Fixed-Size Determinantal Point Processes
Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar
ICML1
2011 Learning Determinantal Point Processes
Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar
UAI1
2010 Structured Determinantal Point Processes
abstract
We present a novel probabilistic model for distributions over sets of structures -- for example, sets of sequences, trees, or graphs. The critical characteristic of our model is a preference for diversity: sets containing dissimilar structures are more likely. Our model is a marriage of structured probabilistic models, like Markov random fields and context free grammars, with determinantal point processes, which arise in quantum physics as models of particles with repulsive interactions. We extend the determinantal point process model to handle an exponentially-sized set of particles (structures) via a natural factorization of the model into parts. We show how this factorization leads to tractable algorithms for exact inference, including computing marginals, computing conditional probabilities, and sampling. Our algorithms exploit a novel polynomially-sized dual representation of determinantal point processes, and use message passing over a special semiring to compute relevant quantities. We illustrate the advantages of the model on tracking and articulated pose estimation problems.
Alex Kulesza, Ben Taskar
NIPS1
2010 A theory of learning from different domains
abstract
Discriminative learning methods for classification perform well when training and test data are drawn from the same distribution. Often, however, we have plentiful labeled training data from a source domain but wish to learn a classifier which performs well on a target domain with a different distribution and little or no labeled training data. In this work we investigate two questions. First, under what conditions can a classifier trained from source data be expected to perform well on target data? Second, given a small amount of labeled target data, how should we combine it during training with the large amount of labeled source data to achieve the lowest target error at test time? We address the first question by bounding a classifier’s target error in terms of its source error and the divergence between the two domains. We give a classifier-induced divergence measure that can be estimated from finite, unlabeled samples from the domains. Under the assumption that there exists some hypothesis that performs well in both domains, we show that this quantity together with the empirical source error characterize the target error of a source-trained classifier. We answer the second question by bounding the target error of a model which minimizes a convex combination of the empirical source and target errors. Previous theoretical work has considered minimizing just the source error, just the target error, or weighting instances from the two domains equally. We show how to choose the optimal combination of source and target error as a function of the divergence, the sample sizes of both domains, and the complexity of the hypothesis class. The resulting bound generalizes the previously studied cases and is always at least as tight as a bound which considers minimizing only the target error or an equal weighting of source and target errors.
Shai Ben-David, John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Fernando Pereira 0003, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
Mach. Learn.4
2010 Multi-domain learning by confidence-weighted parameter combination
Mark Dredze, Alex Kulesza, Koby Crammer
Mach. Learn.2
2009 Multi-Class Confidence Weighted Algorithms
Koby Crammer, Mark Dredze, Alex Kulesza
EMNLP3
2009 Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors
abstract
We present AROW, a new online learning algorithm that combines several properties of successful : large margin training, confidence weighting, and the capacity to handle non-separable data. AROW performs adaptive regularization of the prediction function upon seeing each new instance, allowing it to perform especially well in the presence of label noise. We derive a mistake bound, similar in form to the second order perceptron bound, which does not assume separability. We also relate our algorithm to recent confidence-weighted online learning techniques and empirically show that AROW achieves state-of-the-art performance and notable robustness in the case of non-separable data.
Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Mark Dredze
NIPS2
2007 Learning Bounds for Domain Adaptation
abstract
Empirical risk minimization offers well-known learning guarantees when training and test data come from the same domain. In the real world, though, we often wish to adapt a classifier from a source domain with a large amount of training data to different target domain with very little training data. In this work we give uniform convergence bounds for algorithms that minimize a convex combination of source and target empirical risk. The bounds explicitly model the inherent trade-off between training on a large but inaccurate source data set and a small but accurate target training set. Our theory also gives results when we have multiple source domains, each of which may have a different number of instances, and we exhibit cases in which minimizing a non-uniform combination of source risks can achieve much lower target error than standard empirical risk minimization.
John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Fernando Pereira 0003, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
NIPS3
2007 Structured Learning with Approximate Inference
abstract
In many structured prediction problems, the highest-scoring labeling is hard to compute exactly, leading to the use of approximate inference methods. However, when inference is used in a learning algorithm, a good approximation of the score may not be sufficient. We show in particular that learning can fail even with an approximate inference method with rigorous approximation guarantees. There are two reasons for this. First, approximate methods can effectively reduce the expres- sivity of an underlying model by making it impossible to choose parameters that reliably give good predictions. Second, approximations can respond to parameter changes in such a way that standard learning algorithms are misled. In contrast, we give two positive results in the form of learning bounds for the use of LP-relaxed inference in structured perceptron and empirical risk minimization settings. We argue that without understanding combinations of inference and learning, such as these, that are appropriately compatible, learning performance under approximate inference cannot be guaranteed.
Alex Kulesza
NIPS1
2004 Confidence Estimation for Machine Translation
John Blatz, Erin Fitzgerald, George F. Foster, Simona Gandrabur, Cyril Goutte, Alex Kulesza, Alberto Sanchís, Nicola Ueffing
COLING6