• ML types: Supervised, Unsupervised, and Reinforcement Learning
• Linear Regression model
• Train/Test splitting and overfitting
• Significant events in ML

Training sample: $X^\ell = (x_i, y_i)^\ell_{i=1}$, $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $y_i \in \mathbb{R}$

Linear regression model (weights $w \in \mathbb{R}^n$):

$a(x, w) = \left< w, x\right> = w^T x= \sum\limits_{j=1}^n w_jf_j(x)$

Squared loss function:

$\mathcal{L} (a, y) = (a - y)^2$

Training Method — Least Squares Method:

$Q(w) = \frac1\ell\sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell (a(x_i, w) - y_i)^2 \to \min\limits_w$

Testing on the test set $X^k = (\tilde{x}_i, \tilde{y}_i)_{i=1}^k$:

$\overline{Q}(w) = \frac1k\sum\limits_{i=1}^k (a(\tilde{x}_i, w) - \tilde{y}_i)^2$

Training sample: $X^\ell = (x_i, y_i)^\ell_{i=1}$, $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $\ \color{orange}{y_i \in \{-1, +1\}}$

Classification Model — Linear (weights $w \in \mathbb{R}^n$):

$a(x, w) = {\color{orange}\textrm{sign}} \left< w, x\right> = {\color{orange}\textrm{sign}}(\sum\limits_{j=1}^n w_jf_j(x))$

Loss Function — Binary or its approximation:

$\mathcal{L} (a, y) = [ay < 0] = [\left< w, x\right> y < 0] \leq \overline{\mathcal{L}}(\left< w, x\right>, y)$

Training Method — Minimization of Empirical Risk:

$Q(w) = \frac1\ell\sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell [\left< w, x_i\right> y_i < 0] \leq \frac1\ell\sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell \overline{\mathcal{L}} (\left< w, x_i\right>, y_i) \to \min\limits_w$

Testing on the test set: $X^k = (\tilde{x}_i, \tilde{y}_i)_{i=1}^k$

$\overline{Q}(w) = \frac1k\sum\limits_{i=1}^k \color{orange}{[\left<\tilde{x}_i, w\right> \tilde{y}_i < 0]}$

Separating classifier:

$a(x, w) = \mathrm{sign}\ g(x, w)$

$g(x, w)$ — separating (discriminant) function,
$g(x, w) = 0$ — equation of the separating surface

$M_i(w) = g(x_i, w)y_i$ — margin of object $x_i$

• $f(z)$ — activation function (for example, $\mathrm{sign}$)
• $w_j$ — weight coefficients of synaptic connections
• $w_0 = b$ — activation threshold or bias
• $w, x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ — if you introduce a constant feature $x_0 \equiv -1$

Minimization of empirical risk (regression, classification):

$Q(w) = \frac{1}{\ell} \sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell \mathcal{L}_i(w) \to \min\limits_w$

Numerical minimization by the gradient descent method:

$w^{(0)} = $ initial approximation

$w^{(t+1)} = w^{(t)} - h \nabla_w Q(w^{(t)})$

where $\nabla_w Q(w) = \left(\frac{\partial Q(w)}{\partial w_j} \right)^n_{j=0}$

$w^{(t+1)} = w^{(t)} - \frac{h}{l} \sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell \nabla_w \mathcal{L}_i(w^{(t)})$

where $h$ is the gradient step, also known as the learning rate

Input: sample $X^\ell$, learning rate $h$, decay rate $\lambda$

Output: weight vector $w$

1. Initialize weights $w_j,\ j = 0, \dots, n$
2. Initialize the estimate of the functional: $\overline{Q} = \frac1\ell \sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
3. Repeat:
• Select object $x_i$ from $X^\ell$ randomly
• Compute the loss: $\varepsilon_i = \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
• Make a gradient step: $w = w - h \nabla_w \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
• Assess the functional: $\overline{Q} = \lambda \varepsilon_i + (1 - \lambda) \overline{Q}$

Until the value $\overline{Q}$ and/or weights $w$ converge

---

Robbins, H., Monro S. A stochastic approximation method // Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1951, 22 (3), p. 400—407.

Problem: Calculating the $Q$ estimate over the entire selection $x_1, \dots, x_\ell$ is much slower than the gradient step for a single object $x_i$

Solution: Use an approximate recursive formula. Arithmetic Mean:

$\overline{Q}_m = \frac1m \varepsilon_m + \frac1m \varepsilon_{m-1} + \frac1m \varepsilon_{m-2} + \dots$

$\overline{Q}_m = {\color{orange}\frac1m} \varepsilon_m + {\color{orange}\left(1 - \frac1m\right)} \overline{Q}_{m-1}$

Exponential Moving Average:

$\overline{Q}_m = \lambda \varepsilon_m + \left(1 - \lambda\right)\lambda\varepsilon_{m-1} + \left(1 - \lambda\right)^2\lambda\varepsilon_{m-2} + \dots$

$\overline{Q}_m = {\color{orange}\lambda} \varepsilon_m + {\color{orange}\left(1 - \lambda\right)} \overline{Q}_{m-1}$

The parameter $\lambda$ is the rate of forgetting the history of the series.

Input: sample $X^\ell$, learning rate $h$, decay rate $\lambda$. Output: weight vector $w$

1. Initialize weights $w_j,\ j = 0, \dots, n$
2. Initialize gradients: $G_i = \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(w), i = 1, \dots, \ell$
3. Initialize the estimate of the functional: $\overline{Q} = \frac1\ell \sum\limits_{i=1}^\ell \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
4. Repeat
• Select object $x_i$ from $X^\ell$ randomly
• Compute the loss: $\varepsilon_i = \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
• Compute the gradient: $G_i = \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(w)$
• Make a gradient step: $w := w - h {\color{orange} \frac1\ell \sum_{i=1}^\ell G_i}$
• Estimate the functional: $\overline{Q} = \lambda \varepsilon_i + (1 - \lambda) \overline{Q}$

Until the value of $\overline{Q}$ and/or weights $w$ converge

---

Schmidt M., Le Roux N., Bach F. Minimizing finite sums with the stochastic average gradient // arXiv.org, 2013.

1. $w_j = 0$ for all $j = 0, \dots, n$
2. Small random values: $$w_j = \text{random}\left(- \frac{1}{2n}, \frac{1}{2n}\right)$$
3. $w_j = \frac{\left< y, f_j \right>}{\left< f_j, f_j \right>}$, where $f_j = (f_j(x_i))_{i=1}^\ell$ — vector of feature values

This estimate of $w$ is optimal if

• The loss function is quadratic, and
• The features are uncorrelated: $\left< f_j, f_k \right> = 0, j \neq k$
4. Training on a small random sub-sample of objects
5. Multi-start: multiple starts from different random initial approximations and choosing the best solution

1. Shuffling of objects: alternately take objects from different classes
2. More frequently take objects with larger errors: the smaller margin $M_i$, the higher the probability to take the object
3. More frequently take objects with lower confidence: the smaller $|M_i|$, the higher the probability to take the object
4. Do not take "good" objects at all, for those $M_i > \mu_+$ (this can slightly speed up convergence)
5. Do not take outlier objects at all, for those $M_i < \mu_-$ (this can potentially improve classification quality)

You will have to adjust the parameters $\mu_+, \mu_-$

1. Convergence is guaranteed (for convex functions) when

$$h_t \to 0, \sum\limits_{t=1}^{\infty} h_t = \infty, \sum\limits_{t=1}^{\infty} h_t^2 < \infty,$$

in particular, you can set $h_t = 1/t$

2. The method of fastest gradient descent:

$$\mathcal{L}_i(w - h\nabla \mathcal{L}_i(w)) \to \min\limits_h$$

allows you to find an adaptive step $h^*$. For a quadratic loss function, $h^* = \|x_i\|^{-2}$

3. Test random steps for "knocking out" the iterative process from local minima
4. The Levenberg-Marquardt method (second order)

Possible reasons for overfitting:

• Too few objects and too many features
• Linear dependence (multicollinearity) of features:
• Suppose a classifier has been built: $a(x, w) = \mathrm{sign} \left< w, x\right>$
• Multicollinearity: $\exist u \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}: \forall x_i \in X^\ell \left< u, x_i\right> = 0$
• Non-uniqueness of the solution: $\forall \gamma \in \mathbb{R}\ a(x, w) = \mathrm{sign} \left< w + \gamma u, x\right>$

Manifestations of overfitting:

• Too large weights $|w_j|$ of different signs
• Instability of the discriminant function $\left< w, x\right>$
• $Q(\text{train } X^\ell) \lt\lt Q(\text{test } X^k)$

Main way to reduce overfitting:

Regularization (weight decay)

Regularization (weight decay)

Penalty for increasing the norm of the weight vector:

$\mathcal{\tilde L}_i(w) = \mathcal{L}_i(w) + \frac{\tau}{2} \|w\|^2 = \mathcal{L}_i(w) + \frac{\tau}{2}\sum\limits_{j=1}^n w_j^2 \to \min\limits_w$

Gradient: $\nabla \mathcal{\tilde L}_i(w) = \mathcal{\tilde L}_i(w) + \tau w$

Modification of the gradient step:

$w = w{\color{orange}(1 - h\tau)} - h \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(w)$

Methods for selecting the regularization coefficient $\tau$:

• sliding control
• stochastic adaptation
• two-level Bayesian inference

Advantages:

• easy to implement
• easy to generalize to any $g(x, w), \mathcal{L}(a, y)$
• easy to add regularization
• possible dynamic (streaming) learning
• on super-large samples, you can get a decent solution, even without processing all $x_i, y_i$
• suitable for tasks with large data

Disadvantages:

• selection of a complex of heuristics is an art (do not forget about overfitting, getting stuck, divergence)

• The Stochastic Gradient (SG, SAG) method is suitable for any models and loss functions
• Well suited for large data learning
• Approximation of the threshold loss function $\mathcal{L}(M)$ allows the use of gradient optimization
• Functions $\mathcal{L}(M)$, penalizing for the approximation to the class boundary, increase the gap between classes, thereby improving classification reliability
• Regularization solves the multicollinearity problem and also reduces overfitting
• Likelihood maximization and minimization of the empirical risk are different views on the same optimization problem

Let $X \times Y$ be a probability space, and the model (i.e., its parameters $w$) is also generated by some probability distribution.

Bayes' theorem:

$P(A|B) = \frac{P(B|A)P(A)}{P(B)}$

$A \equiv w$, $B \equiv Y, X\ \Rightarrow$

$P(w|Y, X) = \frac{P(Y, X|w)P(w)}{P(Y, X)} = \frac{P(Y | X, w)P(X|w)P(w)}{P(Y | X)P(X)}$

$\boxed{P(w|Y,\ X) = \frac{P(Y|w, X)P(w)}{P(Y | X)}}$

Here: $P(w|Y, X)$ — posterior distribution of parameters

$P(Y|X, w)$ — likelihood, $P(w)$ — prior distribution of parameters

Let the weights \(w_j\) be independent, \(\mathbb{E}w_j = 0\), \(\mathbb{D}w_j = С\)

Gaussian distribution and quadratic (\(L_2\)) regularizer:

$$P(w; С) = \frac{1}{(2\pi C)^{n/2}} \exp \left(-\frac{{\|w\|^2_2}}{2C}\right)$$ $${\|w\|^2_2 = \sum\limits_{j=1}^n w_j^2}$$ $$-\log P(w; С) = \frac{1}{2C}\|w\|^2_2 + const$$