Trading Convergence Rate with Computational Budget in High Dimensional Bayesian Optimization

November 27, 2019 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Hung Tran-The, Sunil Gupta, Santu Rana, Svetha Venkatesh arXiv ID 1911.11950 Category stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat) Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 14 Venue AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Scaling Bayesian optimisation (BO) to high-dimensional search spaces is a active and open research problems particularly when no assumptions are made on function structure. The main reason is that at each iteration, BO requires to find global maximisation of acquisition function, which itself is a non-convex optimization problem in the original search space. With growing dimensions, the computational budget for this maximisation gets increasingly short leading to inaccurate solution of the maximisation. This inaccuracy adversely affects both the convergence and the efficiency of BO. We propose a novel approach where the acquisition function only requires maximisation on a discrete set of low dimensional subspaces embedded in the original high-dimensional search space. Our method is free of any low dimensional structure assumption on the function unlike many recent high-dimensional BO methods. Optimising acquisition function in low dimensional subspaces allows our method to obtain accurate solutions within limited computational budget. We show that in spite of this convenience, our algorithm remains convergent. In particular, cumulative regret of our algorithm only grows sub-linearly with the number of iterations. More importantly, as evident from our regret bounds, our algorithm provides a way to trade the convergence rate with the number of subspaces used in the optimisation. Finally, when the number of subspaces is "sufficiently large", our algorithm's cumulative regret is at most $\mathcal{O}^{*}(\sqrt{Tฮณ_T})$ as opposed to $\mathcal{O}^{*}(\sqrt{DTฮณ_T})$ for the GP-UCB of Srinivas et al. (2012), reducing a crucial factor $\sqrt{D}$ where $D$ being the dimensional number of input space.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning (Stat)

๐Ÿ”ฎ ๐Ÿ”ฎ The Ethereal

Layer Normalization

Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, Geoffrey E. Hinton

stat.ML ๐Ÿ› arXiv ๐Ÿ“š 12.0K cites 10 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted