arxiv: v2 [stat.ml] 3 Jun 2017

Transcription

1 : A Novel Method for Machine Learning Problems Using Stochastic Recursive Gradient Lam M. Nguyen Jie Liu Katya Scheinberg Martin Takáč arxiv: v [stat.ml] 3 Jun 07 Abstract In this paper, we propose a StochAstic Recursive gradient algorithm (), as well as its practical variant +, as a novel approach to the finite-sum minimization problems. Different from the vanilla SGD and other modern stochastic methods such as, SGD, and A, admits a simple recursive framework for updating stochastic gradient estimates; when comparing to /A, does not require a storage of past gradients. The linear convergence rate of is proven under strong convexity assumption. We also prove a linear convergence rate (in the strongly convex case) for an inner loop of, the property that does not possess. Numerical experiments demonstrate the efficiency of our algorithm.. Introduction We are interested in solving a problem of the form min w R d def P(w) = n i [n] f i (w), () where each f i, i [n] def = {,...,n}, is convex with a Lipschitz continuous gradient. Throughout the paper, we assume that there exists an optimal solutionw of (). Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Lehigh University, USA. On leave at The University of Oxford, UK. All authors were supported by NSF Grant CCF Katya Scheinberg was partially supported by NSF Grants DMS , CCF-3037 and CCF Correspondence to: Lam M. Nguyen <lamnguyen.mltd@gmail.com>, Jie Liu <jie.liu.08@gmail.com>, Katya Scheinberg <katyas@lehigh.edu>, Martin Takáč <Takac.MT@gmail.com>. Proceedings of the 34 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, PMLR 70, 07. Copyright 07 by the author(s). Problems of this type arise frequently in supervised learning applications (Hastie et al., 009). Given a training set {(x i,y i )} n i= with x i R d,y i R, the least squares regression model, for example, is written as () withf i (w) def = (x T i w y i) + λ w, where denotes thel -norm. The l -regularized logistic regression for binary classification is written withf i (w) def = log(+exp( y i x T i w))+ λ w (y i {,}). In recent years, many advanced optimization methods have been developed for problem (). While the objective function is smooth and convex, the traditional optimization methods, such as gradient descent (GD) or Newton method are often impractical for this problem, when n the number of training samples and hence the number of f i s is very large. In particular, GD updates iterates as follows w t+ = w t η t P(w t ), t = 0,,,... Under strong convexity assumption on P and with appropriate choice ofη t, GD converges at a linear rate in terms of objective function valuesp(w t ). However, whennis large, computing P(w t ) at each iteration can be prohibitive. As an alternative, stochastic gradient descent (SGD), originating from the seminal work of Robbins and Monro in 95 (Robbins & Monro, 95), has become the method of choice for solving (). At each step, SGD picks an index i [n] uniformly at random, and updates the iterate as w t+ = w t η t f i (w t ), which is up-to n times cheaper than an iteration of a full gradient method. The convergence rate of SGD is slower than that of GD, in particular, it is sublinear in the strongly convex case. The tradeoff, however, is advantageous due to the tremendous per-iteration savings and the fact that low accuracy solutions are sufficient. This trade-off has been thoroughly analyzed in (Bottou, 998). Unfortunately, in practice SGD method is often too slow and its performance is too sensitive to the variance in the sample gradients f i (w t ). Use of mini-batches (averaging multiple sample gradients f i (w t )) was used in (Shalev-Shwartz et al., 007; We mark here that even though stochastic gradient is referred to as SG in literature, the term stochastic gradient descent (SGD) has been widely used in many important works of large-scale learning, including /A, SDCA, and MISO.

2 Table : Comparisons between different algorithms for strongly convex functions. κ = L/µ is the condition number. Method Complexity Fixed Learning Rate Low Storage Cost GD O(nκ log(/ǫ)) SGD O(/ǫ) O((n+κ)log(/ǫ)) /A O((n+κ)log(/ǫ)) O((n+κ)log(/ǫ)) Table : Comparisons between different algorithms for convex functions. Method Complexity GD O(n/ǫ) SGD O ( /ǫ ) O(n+( n/ǫ)) A O(n+(n/ǫ)) O((n+(/ǫ))log(/ǫ)) (one outer loop) O ( n+(/ǫ ) ) Cotter et al., 0; Takáč et al., 03) to reduce the variance and improve convergence rate by constant factors. Using diminishing sequence {η t } is used to control the variance (Shalev-Shwartz et al., 0; Bottou et al., 06), but the practical convergence of SGD is known to be very sensitive to the choice of this sequence, which needs to be hand-picked. Recently, a class of more sophisticated algorithms have emerged, which use the specific finite-sum form of () and combine some deterministic and stochastic aspects to reduce variance of the steps. The examples of these methods are /A (Le Roux et al., 0; Defazio et al., 04), SDCA (Shalev-Shwartz & Zhang, 03), (Johnson & Zhang, 03; Xiao & Zhang, 04), DIAG (Mokhtari et al., 07), MISO (Mairal, 03) and SGD (Konečný & Richtárik, 03), all of which enjoy faster convergence rate than that of SGD and use a fixed learning rate parameterη. In this paper we introduce a new method in this category,, which further improves several aspects of the existing methods. In Table we summarize complexity and some other properties of the existing methods and when applied to strongly convex problems. Although and have the same convergence rate, we introduce a practical variant of that outperforms in our experiments. In addition, theoretical results for complexity of the methods or their variants when applied to general convex functions have been derived (Schmidt et al., 06; Defazio et al., 04; Reddi et al., 06; Allen-Zhu & Yuan, 06; Allen-Zhu, 07). In Table we summarize the key complexity results, noting that convergence rate is now sublinear. Our Contributions. In this paper, we propose a novel algorithm which combines some of the good properties of existing algorithms, such as A and, while aiming to improve on both of these methods. In particular, our algorithm does not take steps along a stochastic gradient direction, but rather along an accumulated direction using past stochastic gradient information (as in A) and occasional exact gradient information (as in ). We summarize the key properties of the proposed algorithm below. Similarly to, s iterations are divided into the outer loop where a full gradient is computed and the inner loop where only stochastic gradient is computed. Unlike the case of, the steps of the inner loop of are based on accumulated stochastic information. Like /A and, has a sublinear rate of convergence for general convex functions, and a linear rate of convergence for strongly convex functions. uses a constant learning rate, whose size is larger than that of. We analyze and discuss the optimal choice of the learning rate and the number of inner loop steps. However, unlike /A but similar to, does not require a storage ofnpast stochastic gradients. We also prove a linear convergence rate (in the strongly convex case) for the inner loop of, the property that does not possess. We show that the variance of the steps inside the inner loop goes to zero, thus is theoretically more stable and reliable than. We provide a practical variant of based on the convergence properties of the inner loop, where the simple stable stopping criterion for the inner loop is used (see Section 4 for more details). This variant shows how can be made more stable than in practice.. Stochastic Recursive Gradient Algorithm Now we are ready to present our (Algorithm ). The key step of the algorithm is a recursive update of the stochastic gradient estimate ( update) v t = f it (w t ) f it (w t )+v t, () followed by the iterate update: w t+ = w t ηv t. (3) For comparison, update can be written in a similar way as v t = f it (w t ) f it (w 0 )+v 0. (4)

3 Algorithm Parameters: the learning rate η > 0 and the inner loop size m. Initialize: w 0 Iterate: fors =,,... do w 0 = w s v 0 = n n i= f i(w 0 ) w = w 0 ηv 0 Iterate: fort =,...,m do Samplei t uniformly at random from[n] v t = f it (w t ) f it (w t )+v t w t+ = w t ηv t end for Set w s = w t with t chosen uniformly at random from {0,,...,m} end for Observe that in, v t is an unbiased estimator of the gradient, while it is not true for. Specifically, E[v t F t ] = P(w t ) P(w t )+v t P(w t ), (5) where 3 F t = σ(w 0,i,i,...,i t ) is the σ-algebra generated by w 0,i,i,...,i t ; F 0 = F = σ(w 0 ). Hence, is different from SGD and type of methods, however, the following total expectation holds, E[v t ] = E[ P(w t )], differentiating from /A. is similar to since they both contain outer loops which require one full gradient evaluation per outer iteration followed by one full gradient descent step with a given learning rate. The difference lies in the inner loop, where updates the stochastic step direction v t recursively by adding and subtracting component gradients to and from the previousv t (t ) in (). Each inner iteration evaluatesstochastic gradients and hence the total work per outer iteration iso(n+m) in terms of the number of gradient evaluations. Note that due to its nature, without running the inner loop, i.e., m =, reduces to the GD algorithm. 3. Theoretical Analysis To proceed with the analysis of the proposed algorithm, we will make the following common assumptions. Assumption (L-smooth). Eachf i : R d R, i [n], is L-smooth, i.e., there exists a constant L > 0 such that f i (w) f i (w ) L w w, w,w R d. E[ F t] = E it [ ], which is expectation with respect to the random choice of indexi t (conditioned on w 0,i,i,...,i t ). 3 F t also contains all the information of w 0,...,w t as well as v 0,...,v t. Note that this assumption implies that P(w) = n n i= f i(w) is also L-smooth. The following strong convexity assumption will be made for the appropriate parts of the analysis, otherwise, it would be dropped. Assumption a (µ-strongly convex). The function P : R d R, is µ-strongly convex, i.e., there exists a constant µ > 0 such that w,w R d, P(w) P(w )+ P(w ) T (w w )+ µ w w. Another, stronger, assumption of µ-strong convexity for () will also be imposed when required in our analysis. Note that Assumption b implies Assumption a but not vice versa. Assumption b. Each function f i : R d R, i [n], is strongly convex with µ > 0. Under Assumption a, let us define the (unique) optimal solution of () as w, Then strong convexity of P implies that µ[p(w) P(w )] P(w), w R d. (6) We note here, for future use, that for strongly convex functions of the form (), arising in machine learning applications, the condition number is defined as κ def = L/µ. Furthermore, we should also notice that Assumptions a and b both cover a wide range of problems, e.g. l -regularized empirical risk minimization problems with convex losses. Finally, as a special case of the strong convexity of all f i s with µ = 0, we state the general convexity assumption, which we will use for convergence analysis. Assumption 3. Each function f i : R d R, i [n], is convex, i.e., f i (w) f i (w )+ f i (w ) T (w w ), i [n]. Again, we note that Assumption b implies Assumption 3, but Assumption a does not. Hence in our analysis, depending on the result we aim at, we will require Assumption 3 to hold by itself, or Assumption a and Assumption 3 to hold together, or Assumption b to hold by itself. We will always use Assumption. Our iteration complexity analysis aims to bound the number of outer iterations T (or total number of stochastic gradient evaluations) which is needed to guarantee that P(w T ) ǫ. In this case we will say that w T is an ǫ-accurate solution. However, as is common practice for stochastic gradient algorithms, we aim to obtain the bound on the number of iterations, which is required to guarantee the bound on the expected squared norm of a gradient, i.e., E[ P(w T ) ] ǫ. (7)

4 x A Simple Example with x x A Simple Example with x Figure : A two-dimensional example ofmin wp(w) withn = 5 for (left) and (right). vt 0 4 rcv, Moving Average with Span vt 0 3 rcv, Moving Average with Span Figure : An example of l -regularized logistic regression on rcv training dataset for,, and with multiple outer iterations (left) and a single outer iteration (right). 3.. Linearly Diminishing Step-Size in a Single Inner Loop The most important property of the algorithm is the variance reduction of the steps. This property holds as the number of outer iteration grows, but it does not hold, if only the number of inner iterations increases. In other words, if we simply run the inner loop for many iterations (without executing additional outer loops), the variance of the steps does not reduce in the case of, while it goes to zero in the case of. To illustrate this effect, let us take a look at Figures and. In Figure, we applied one outer loop of and to a sum of 5 quadratic functions in a twodimensional space, where the optimal solution is at the origin, the black lines and black dots indicate the trajectory of each algorithm and the red point indicates the final iterate. Initially, both and take steps along stochastic gradient directions towards the optimal solution. However, later iterations of wander randomly around the origin with large deviation from it, while follows a much more stable convergent trajectory, with a final iterate falling in a small neighborhood of the optimal solution. In Figure, the x-axis denotes the number of effective passes which is equivalent to the number of passes through all of the data in the dataset, the cost of each pass being equal to the cost of one full gradient evaluation; and y-axis represents v t. Figure shows the evolution of v t for,, (SGD with decreasing learning rate) and (an accelerated version of GD (Beck & Teboulle, 009)) withm = 4n, where the left plot shows the trend over multiple outer iterations and the right plot shows a single outer iteration 4. We can see that for, v t decreases over the outer iterations, while it has an increasing trend or oscillating trend for each inner loop. In contrast, enjoys decreasing trends both in the outer and the inner loop iterations. We will now show that the stochastic steps computed by converge linearly in the inner loop. We present two linear convergence results based on our two different assumptions of µ-strong convexity. These results substantiate our conclusion that uses more stable stochastic gradient estimates than. The following theorem is our first result to demonstrate the linear convergence of our stochastic recursive step v t. Theorem a. Suppose that Assumptions, a and 3 hold. Consider v t defined by () in (Algorithm ) with η < /L. Then, for anyt, [ ( E[ v t ] )µ η ] E[ v t ] [ ( )µ η ] t E[ P(w0 ) ]. This result implies that by choosing η = O(/L), we obtain the linear convergence of v t in expectation with the rate ( /κ ). Below we show that a better convergence rate can be obtained under a stronger convexity assumption. Theorem b. Suppose that Assumptions and b hold. Consider v t defined by () in (Algorithm ) with η /(µ+l). Then the following bound holds, t, ( E[ v t ] µlη µ+l ) E[ v t ] ( µlη µ+l) te[ P(w0 ) ]. Again, by setting η = O(/L), we derive the linear convergence with the rate of ( /κ), which is a significant improvement over the result of Theorem a, when the problem is severely ill-conditioned. 3.. Convergence Analysis In this section, we derive the general convergence rate results for Algorithm. First, we present two important Lemmas as the foundation of our theory. Then, we proceed to prove sublinear convergence rate of a single outer iteration when applied to general convex functions. In the end, we prove that the algorithm with multiple outer iterations has linear convergence rate in the strongly convex case. 4 In the plots of Figure, since the data for is noisy, we smooth it by using moving average filters with spans 00 for the left plot and 0 for the right one.

5 We begin with proving two useful lemmas that do not require any convexity assumption. The first Lemma bounds the sum of expected values of P(w t ). The second, Lemma, boundse[ P(w t ) v t ]. Lemma. Suppose that Assumption holds. Consider (Algorithm ). Then, we have E[ P(w t ) ] η E[P(w 0) P(w )] (8) + E[ P(w t ) v t ] ( Lη) E[ v t ]. Lemma. Suppose that Assumption holds. Consider v t defined by () in (Algorithm ). Then for anyt, E[ P(w t ) v t ] = t E[ v j v j ] j= t E[ P(w j ) P(w j ) ]. j= Now we are ready to provide our main theoretical results GENERAL CONVEX CASE Following from Lemma, we can obtain the following upper bound for E[ P(w t ) v t ] for convex functions f i,i [n]. Lemma 3. Suppose that Assumptions and 3 hold. Consider v t defined as () in (Algorithm ) with η < /L. Then we have that for anyt, E[ P(w t ) v t ] [ ] E[ v 0 ] E[ v t ] E[ v 0 ]. (9) Using the above lemmas, we can state and prove one of our core theorems as follows. Theorem. Suppose that Assumptions and 3 hold. Consider (Algorithm ) with η /L. Then for any s, we have E[ P( w s ) ] η(m+) E[P( w s ) P(w )] + E[ P( w s ) ]. (0) Proof. Sincev 0 = P(w 0 ) implies P(w 0 ) v 0 = 0 then by Lemma 3, we can write m E[ P(w t) v t ] m E[ v 0 ]. () Hence, by Lemma withη /L, we have m E[ P(w t) ] η E[P(w 0) P(w )]+ m E[ P(w t) v t ] () η E[P(w 0) P(w )]+ m E[ v 0 ]. () Since we are considering one outer iteration, with s, then we have v 0 = P(w 0 ) = P( w s ) (since w 0 = w s ), and w s = w t, where t is picked uniformly at random from{0,,...,m}. Therefore, the following holds, E[ P( w s ) ] = m+ m E[ P(w t) ] () η(m+) E[P( w s ) P(w )] + E[ P( w s ) ]. Theorem, in the case whenη /L implies that E[ P( w s ) ] η(m+) E[P( w s ) P(w )] +E[ P( w s ) ]. By choosing the learning rateη = L(m+) (withmsuch that L(m+) /L) we can derive the following convergence result, E[ P( w s ) ] L m+ E[P( w s ) P(w )+ P( w s ) ]. Clearly, this result shows a sublinear convergence rate for under general convexity assumption within a single inner loop, with increasing m, and consequently, we have the following result for complexity bound. Corollary. Suppose that Assumptions and 3 hold. Consider (Algorithm ) within a single outer iteration with the learning rateη = L(m+) wherem L is the total number of iterations, then P(w t ) converges sublinearly in expectation with a rate of L m+, and therefore, the total complexity to achieve anǫ-accurate solution defined in (7) is O(n+/ǫ ). We now turn to estimating convergence of with multiple outer steps. Simply using Theorem for each of the outer steps we have the following result. Theorem 3. Suppose that Assumptions and 3 hold. Consider (Algorithm ) and define δ k = η(m+) E[P( w k) P(w )], k = 0,,...,s, andδ = max 0 k s δ k. Then we have E[ P( w s ) ] α s ( P( w 0 ) ), (3) ( ) where = δ + ( ), andα =.

6 Learning Rate Evolutions of Learning Rates σ m () α m () m 0 7 Convergence Rate 0 6 Evolutions of Convergence Rates σ m () α m () m 0 7 Convergence Rate Evolutions of Convergence Rates σ m () α m () m 0 7 Figure 3: Theoretical comparisons of learning rates (left) and convergence rates (middle and right) withn =,000,000 for and in one inner loop. Based on Theorem 3, we have the following total complexity for in the general convex case. Corollary. Let us choose = ǫ/4, α = / (with η = /(3L)), and m = O(/ǫ) in Theorem 3. Then, the total complexity to achieve an ǫ-accuracy solution defined in (7) iso((n+(/ǫ))log(/ǫ)) STRONGLY CONVEX CASE We now turn to the discussion of the linear convergence rate of under the strong convexity assumption on P. From Theorem, for any s, using property (6) of theµ-strongly convexp, we have E[ P( w s ) ] η(m+) E[P( w s ) P(w )] (6) ( and equivalently, + µη(m+) + E[ P( w s ) ] ) E[ P( w s ) ], E[ P( w s ) ] σ m E[ P( w s ) ]. (4) def Let us define σ m = µη(m+) +. Then by choosing η and m such that σ m <, and applying (4) recursively, we are able to reach the following convergence result. Theorem 4. Suppose that Assumptions, a and 3 hold. Consider (Algorithm ) with the choice ofη andm such that Then, we have σ m def = µη(m+) + <. (5) E[ P( w s ) ] (σ m ) s P( w 0 ). Remark. Theorem 4 implies that any η < /L will work for. Let us compare our convergence rate to that of. The linear rate of, as presented in (Johnson & Zhang, 03), is given by α m = µη( Lη)m + <. We observe that it implies that the learning rate has to satisfy η < /(4L), which is a tighter restriction than η < /L required by. In addition, with the same values of m and η, the rate or convergence of (the outer iterations) of is always smaller than that of. σ m = µη(m+) + = µη(m+) + /() < µη( Lη)m + 0.5/() = α m. Remark. To further demonstrate the better convergence properties of, let us consider following optimization problem min σ m, 0<η</L min α m, 0<η</4L which can be interpreted as the best convergence rates for different values of m, for both and. After simple calculations, we plot both learning rates and the corresponding theoretical rates of convergence, as shown in Figure 3, where the right plot is a zoom-in on a part of the middle plot. The left plot shows that the optimal learning rate for is significantly larger than that of, while the other two plots show significant improvement upon outer iteration convergence rates for over. Based on Theorem 4, we are able to derive the following total complexity for in the strongly convex case. Corollary 3. Fix ǫ (0,), and let us run with η = /(L) and m = 4.5κ for T iterations where T = log( P( w 0 ) /ǫ)/log(9/7), then we can derive an ǫ-accuracy solution defined in (7). Furthermore, we can obtain the total complexity of, to achieve the ǫ-accuracy solution, as O((n + κ) log(/ǫ)). 4. A Practical Variant While is an efficient variance-reducing stochastic gradient method, one of its main drawbacks is the sensitivity of the practical performance with respect to the choice of m. It is know that m should be around O(κ), 5 while it still remains unknown that what the exact best choice is. In this section, we propose a practical variant of as 5 In practice, when n is large, P(w) is often considered as a regularized Empirical Loss Minimization problem with regularization parameter λ =, then κ O(n). n

7 + (Algorithm ), which provides an automatic and adaptive choice of the inner loop sizem. Guided by the linear convergence of the steps in the inner loop, demonstrated in Figure, we introduce a stopping criterion based on the values of v t while upper-bounding the total number of steps by a large enough m for robustness. The other modification compared to (Algorithm ) is the more practical choice w s = w t, where t is the last index of the particular inner loop, instead of randomly selected intermediate index. Algorithm + Parameters: the learning rateη > 0,0 < γ and the maximum inner loop size m. Initialize: w 0 Iterate: fors =,,... do w 0 = w s v 0 = n n i= f i(w 0 ) w = w 0 ηv 0 t = while v t > γ v 0 and t < m do Samplei t uniformly at random from[n] v t = f it (w t ) f it (w t )+v t w t+ = w t ηv t t = t+ end while Set w s = w t end for Different from, + provides a possibility of earlier termination and unnecessary careful choices of m, and it also covers the classical gradient descent when we set γ = (since the while loop does not proceed). In Figure 4 we present the numerical performance of + with different γs on rcv and news0 datasets. The size of the inner loop provides a trade-off between the fast sublinear convergence in the inner loop and linear convergence in the outer loop. From the results, it appears that γ = /8 is the optimal choice. With a larger γ, i.e. γ > /8, the iterates in the inner loop do not provide sufficient reduction, before another full gradient computation is required, while with γ < /8 an unnecessary number of inner steps is performed without gaining substantial progress. Clearly γ is another parameter that requires tuning, however, in our experiments, the performance of + has been very robust with respect to the choices of γ and did not vary much from one data set to another. Similarly to, v t decreases in the outer iterations of +. However, unlike, + also inherits from the consistent decrease of v t in expectation in the inner loops. It is not possible to apply the same idea of adaptively terminating the inner loop of 0 0 rcv γ= γ=/ γ=/4 γ=/8 γ=/6 γ=/64 γ=/ news0 γ= γ=/ γ=/4 γ=/8 γ=/6 γ=/64 γ=/ Figure 4: An example of l -regularized logistic regression on rcv (left) and news0 (right) training datasets for + with different γs on loss residuals P(w) P(w ). Table 3: Summary of datasets used for experiments. Dataset d n (train) Sparsity n (test) L covtype ,709.% 74, ijcnn 9, % 49, news0,355,9 3, % 5, rcv 47,36 677, % 0, based on the reduction in v t, as v t may have side fluctuations as shown in Figure. 5. Numerical Experiments To support the theoretical analyses and insights, we present our empirical experiments, comparing and + with the state-of-the-art first-order methods for l -regularized logistic regression problems with f i (w) = log(+exp( y i x T i w))+ λ w, on datasets covtype, ijcnn, news0 and rcv 6. For ijcnn and rcv we use the predefined testing and training sets, while covtype and news0 do not have test data, hence we randomly split the datasets with 70% for training and 30% for testing. Some statistics of the datasets are summarized in Table 3. The penalty parameter λ is set to /n as is common practice (Le Roux et al., 0). Note that like /SGD and /A, also allows an efficient sparse implementation named lazy updates (Konečný et al., 06). We conduct and compare numerical results of with,, and. (Johnson & Zhang, 03) and (Le Roux et al., 0) are classic modern stochastic methods. is SGD with decreasing learning rate η = η 0 /(k +) where k is the number of effective passes and η 0 is some initial constant learning rate. (Beck & Teboulle, 009) is the Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm, wellknown as an efficient accelerated version of the gradient descent. Even though for each method, there is a theoretical safe learning rate, we compare the results for the best learning rates in hindsight. Figure 5 shows numerical results in terms of loss residuals 6 All datasets are available at edu.tw/ cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets/.

8 0 0 covtype 0 0 ijcnn 0 0 news0 0 0 rcv Test Error Rate covtype Test Error Rate ijcnn Test Error Rate news Test Error Rate rcv Figure 5: Comparisons of loss residuals P(w) P(w ) (top) and test errors (bottom) from different modern stochastic methods on covtype, ijcnn, news0 and rcv. Table 4: Summary of best parameters for all the algorithms on different datasets. Dataset (m,η ) (m,η ) (η ) (η ) (η ) covtype (n, 0.9/L) (n, 0.8/L) 0.3/L 0.06/L 50/L ijcnn (0.5n, 0.8/L) (n, 0.5/L) 0.7/L 0./L 90/L news0 (0.5n, 0.9/L) (n, 0.5/L) 0./L 0./L 30/L rcv (0.7n, 0.7/L) (0.5n, 0.9/L) 0./L 0./L 0/L (top) and test errors (bottom) on the four datasets, is sometimes comparable or a little worse than other methods at the beginning. However, it quickly catches up to or surpasses all other methods, demonstrating a faster rate of decrease across all experiments. We observe that on covtype and rcv,, and are comparable with some advantage of on covtype. On ijcnn and news0, and consistently surpass the other methods. In particular, to validate the efficiency of our practical variant +, we provide an insight into how important the choices of m and η are for and in Table 4 and Figure 6. Table 4 presents the optimal choices of m and η for each of the algorithm, while Figure 6 shows the behaviors of and with different choices of m for covtype and ijcnn, where m s denote the best choices. In Table 4, the optimal learning rates of vary less among different datasets compared to all the other methods and they approximate the theoretical upper bound for (/L); on the contrary, for the other methods the empirical optimal rates can exceed their theoretical limits ( with /(4L), with /(6L), with /L). This empirical studies suggest that it is much easier to tune and find the ideal learning rate for. As observed in Figure 6, the behaviors of both and are quite sensitive to the choices of m. With improper choices of m, the loss residuals can be increased considerably from 0 5 to 0 3 on both covtype in 40 effective passes and ijcnn in 7 effective passes for m*/8 m*/4 m*/ m* m* 4m* 8m* (covtype) (covtype) m*/8 m*/4 m*/ m* m* 4m* 8m* (ijcnn) m*/8 m*/4 m*/ m* m* 4m* 8m* (ijcnn) m*/8 m*/4 m*/ m* m* 4m* 8m* Figure 6: Comparisons of loss residuals P(w) P(w ) for different inner loop sizes with (top) and (bottom) on covtype and ijcnn. /. 6. Conclusion We propose a new variance reducing stochastic recursive gradient algorithm, which combines some of the properties of well known existing algorithms, such as A and. For smooth convex functions, we show a sublinear convergence rate, while for strongly convex cases, we prove the linear convergence rate and the computational complexity as those of and. However, compared to, s convergence rate constant is smaller and the algorithms is more stable both theoretically and numerically. Additionally, we prove the linear convergence for inner loops of which support the claim of stability. Based on this convergence we derive a practical version of, with a simple stopping criterion for the inner loops.

9 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the reviewers for useful suggestions which helped to improve the exposition in the paper. References Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan. Katyusha: The First Direct Acceleration of Stochastic Gradient Methods. Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing (to appear), 07. Allen-Zhu, Zeyuan and Yuan, Yang. Improved for Non-Strongly-Convex or Sum-of-Non-Convex Objectives. In ICML, pp , 06. Beck, Amir and Teboulle, Marc. A fast iterative shrinkagethresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM J. Imaging Sciences, ():83 0, 009. Bottou, Léon. Online learning and stochastic approximations. In Saad, David (ed.), Online Learning in Neural Networks, pp Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 998. ISBN Bottou, Léon, Curtis, Frank E, and Nocedal, Jorge. Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. arxiv: , 06. Cotter, Andrew, Shamir, Ohad, Srebro, Nati, and Sridharan, Karthik. Better mini-batch algorithms via accelerated gradient methods. In NIPS, pp , 0. Defazio, Aaron, Bach, Francis, and Lacoste-Julien, Simon. A: A fast incremental gradient method with support for non-strongly convex composite objectives. In NIPS, pp , 04. Hastie, Trevor, Tibshirani, Robert, and Friedman, Jerome. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer Series in Statistics, nd edition, 009. Johnson, Rie and Zhang, Tong. Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variance reduction. In NIPS, pp , 03. Konečný, Jakub, Liu, Jie, Richtárik, Peter, and Takáč, Martin. Mini-batch semi-stochastic gradient descent in the proximal setting. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 0:4 55, 06. Konečný, Jakub and Richtárik, Peter. Semi-stochastic gradient descent methods. arxiv:3.666, 03. Le Roux, Nicolas, Schmidt, Mark, and Bach, Francis. A stochastic gradient method with an exponential convergence rate for finite training sets. In NIPS, pp , 0. Mairal, Julien. Optimization with first-order surrogate functions. In ICML, pp , 03. Mokhtari, Aryan, Gürbüzbalaban, Mert, and Ribeiro, Alejandro. A double incremental aggregated gradient method with linear convergence rate for large-scale optimization. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech and Signal Processing (to appear), 07. Nesterov, Yurii. Introductory lectures on convex optimization : a basic course. Applied optimization. Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, Dordrecht, London, 004. ISBN Reddi, Sashank J., Hefny, Ahmed, Sra, Suvrit, Póczos, Barnabás, and Smola, Alexander J. Stochastic variance reduction for nonconvex optimization. In ICML, pp , 06. Robbins, Herbert and Monro, Sutton. A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, (3): , 95. Schmidt, Mark, Le Roux, Nicolas, and Bach, Francis. Minimizing finite sums with the stochastic average gradient. Mathematical Programming, pp. 30, 06. Shalev-Shwartz, Shai and Zhang, Tong. Stochastic dual coordinate ascent methods for regularized loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4(): , 03. Shalev-Shwartz, Shai, Singer, Yoram, and Srebro, Nathan. Pegasos: Primal estimated sub-gradient solver for SVM. In ICML, pp , 007. Shalev-Shwartz, Shai, Singer, Yoram, Srebro, Nathan, and Cotter, Andrew. Pegasos: Primal estimated sub-gradient solver for SVM. Mathematical Programming, 7(): 3 30, 0. Takáč, Martin, Bijral, Avleen Singh, Richtárik, Peter, and Srebro, Nathan. Mini-batch primal and dual methods for SVMs. In ICML, pp , 03. Xiao, Lin and Zhang, Tong. A proximal stochastic gradient method with progressive variance reduction. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 4(4): , 04.

10 Supplementary Material A. Technical Results Lemma 4 (Theorem..5 in (Nesterov, 004)). Suppose thatf is convex andl-smooth. Then, for anyw, w R d, f(w) f(w )+ f(w ) T (w w )+ L w w, (6) f(w) f(w )+ f(w ) T (w w )+ L f(w) f(w ), (7) ( f(w) f(w )) T (w w ) L f(w) f(w ). (8) Note that (6) does not require the convexity off. Lemma 5 (Theorem.. in (Nesterov, 004)). Suppose that f is µ-strongly convex and L-smooth. Then, for any w, w R d, ( f(w) f(w )) T (w w ) µl µ+l w w + µ+l f(w) f(w ). (9) Lemma 6 (Choices ofmandη). Consider the rate of convergenceσ m in Theorem 4. If we chooseη = /(θl) withθ > and fixσ m, then the best choice ofmis m = (θ ) κ, where κ def = L/µ, with θ calculated as: θ = σ m ++ σ m + σ m. Furthermore, we require θ > + / forσ m <. B. Proofs B.. Proof of Lemma By Assumption andw t+ = w t ηv t, we have E[P(w t+ )] (6) E[P(w t )] ηe[ P(w t ) T v t ]+ Lη E[ v t ] = E[P(w t )] η E[ P(w t) ]+ η E[ P(w t) v t ] where the last equality follows from the fact a T b = By summing overt = 0,...,m, we have E[P(w m+ )] E[P(w 0 )] η E[ P(w t ) ]+ η [ a + b a b ]. ( ) η Lη E[ v t ], ( ) η E[ P(w t ) v t ] Lη m E[ v t ],

11 which is equivalent to (η > 0): E[ P(w t ) ] η E[P(w 0) P(w m+ )]+ E[ P(w t ) v t ] ( Lη) E[ v t ] η E[P(w 0) P(w )]+ E[ P(w t ) v t ] ( Lη) E[ v t ], where the last inequality follows since w is a global minimizer ofp. B.. Proof of Lemma Note thatf j contains all the information ofw 0,...,w j as well asv 0,...,v j. Forj, we have E[ P(w j ) v j F j ] = E[ [ P(w j ) v j ]+[ P(w j ) P(w j )] [v j v j ] F j ] where the last equality follows from = P(w j ) v j + P(w j ) P(w j ) +E[ v j v j F j ] +( P(w j ) v j ) T ( P(w j ) P(w j )) ( P(w j ) v j ) T E[v j v j F j ] ( P(w j ) P(w j )) T E[v j v j F j ] = P(w j ) v j P(w j ) P(w j ) +E[ v j v j F j ], E[v j v j F j ] () = E[ f ij (w j ) f ij (w j ) F j ] = P(w j ) P(w j ). By taking expectation for the above equation, we have E[ P(w j ) v j ] = E[ P(w j ) v j ] E[ P(w j ) P(w j ) ]+E[ v j v j ]. Note that P(w 0 ) v 0 = 0. By summing overj =,...,t(t ), we have B.3. Proof of Lemma 3 Forj, we have E[ P(w t ) v t ] = t E[ v j v j ] j= t E[ P(w j ) P(w j ) ]. E[ v j F j ] = E[ v j ( f ij (w j ) f ij (w j )) F j ] ] = v j +E [ f ij (w j ) f ij (w j ) η ( f i j (w j ) f ij (w j )) T (w j w j ) F j (8) [ ] v j +E f ij (w j ) f ij (w j ) Lη f i j (w j ) f ij (w j ) F j ( ) = v j + E[ f ij (w j ) f ij (w j ) F j ] ( ) () = v j + E[ v j v j F j ], which, if we take expectation, implies that whenη < /L. j= E[ v j v j ] [ ] E[ v j ] E[ v j ],

12 By summing the above inequality overj =,...,t(t ), we have By Lemma, we have B.4. Proof of Lemma 6 t j= E[ P(w t ) v t ] E[ v j v j ] [ ] E[ v 0 ] E[ v t ]. (0) t j= E[ v j v j ] (0) [ ] E[ v 0 ] E[ v t ]. Withη = /(θl) andκ = L/µ, the rate of convergenceα m can be written as which is equivalent to (5) σ m = µη(m+) + = θl µ(m+) + /θ /θ = m(θ) def θ(θ ) = m = σ m (θ ) κ. ( ) κ θ + m+ θ, Since σ m is considered fixed, then the optimal choice of m in terms of θ can be solved from min θ m(θ), or equivalently, 0 = ( m)/( θ) = m (θ), and therefore we have the equation with the optimalθ satisfying and by plugging it intom(θ) we conclude the optimalm: σ m = (4θ )/(θ ), () m = m(k ) = (K ) κ, while by solving forθ in () and taking into account that θ >, we have the optimal choice ofθ: Obviously, forσ m <, we requireθ > + /. B.5. Proof of Theorem a θ = σ m ++ σ m + σ m. Fort, we have P(w t ) P(w t ) = n n n [ f i (w t ) f i (w t )] i= n f i (w t ) f i (w t ) i= = E[ f it (w t ) f it (w t ) F t ]. () Using the proof of Lemma 3, fort, we have ( ) E[ v t F t ] v t + E[ f it (w t ) f it (w t ) F t ] () ( ) v t + P(w t ) P(w t ) ( ) v t + µ η v t.

13 Note that < 0 since η < /L. The last inequality follows by the strong convexity of P, that is, µ w t w t P(w t ) P(w t ) and the fact that w t = w t ηv t. By taking the expectation and applying recursively, we have [ ( E[ v t ] )µ η ] E[ v t ] [ ( )µ η ] t E[ v0 ] [ ( = )µ η ] t E[ P(w0 ) ]. B.6. Proof of Theorem b We obviously havee[ v 0 F 0 ] = P(w 0 ). Fort, we have E[ v t F t ] () = E[ v t ( f it (w t ) f it (w t )) F t ] (3) = v t +E[ f it (w t ) f it (w t ) η ( f i t (w t ) f it (w t )) T (w t w t ) F t ] (9) v t µlη µ+l v t +E[ f it (w t ) f it (w t ) F t ] η µ+l E[ f i t (w t ) f it (w t ) F t ] = ( µlη µ+l ) v t +( η µ+l )E[ f i t (w t ) f it (w t ) F t ] ( ) v t, µlη µ+l where in last inequality we have used that η /(µ + L). By taking the expectation and applying recursively, the desired result is achieved. B.7. Proof of Theorem 3 By Theorem, we have E[ P( w s ) ] where the second last equality follows since Hence, the desired result is achieved. B.8. Proof of Corollary η(m+) E[P( w s ) P(w )]+ E[ P( w s ) ] = δ s +αe[ P( w s ) ] δ s +αδ s + +α s δ 0 +α s P( w 0 ) δ +αδ + +α s δ +α s P( w 0 ) δ αs α +αs P( w 0 ) = ( α s )+α s P( w 0 ) = +α s ( P( w 0 ) ), ( ) ( ) δ α = δ = δ + =. ( ) Based on Theorem 3, if we would aim for anǫ-accuracy solution, we can choose = ǫ/4 andα = / (withη = /(3L)). To obtain the convergence to an ǫ-accuracy solution, we need to have δ = O(ǫ), or equivalently, m = O(/ǫ). Then we (3)

14 have E[ P( w s ) ] (3) + E[ P( w s ) ] + + E[ P( w s ) ] ( ) s + s P( w 0) + s P( w 0). To guarantee that E[ P( w s ) ] ǫ, it is sufficient to make P( w s 0 ) 3 4ǫ, ors = O(log(/ǫ)). This implies the total complexity to achieve an ǫ-accuracy solution is(n + m)s = O((n +(/ǫ)) log(/ǫ)). B.9. Proof of Corollary 3 Based on Lemma 6 and Theorem 4, let us pick θ =, i.e, then we have m = 4.5κ. So let us run with η = /(L) andm = 4.5κ, then we can calculateσ m in (5) as σ m = µη(m+) + = [µ/(l)](4.5κ+) + / / < = 7 9. According to Theorem 4, if we run for T iterations where then we have T = log( P( w 0 ) /ǫ)/log(9/7) = log 7/9 (ǫ/ P( w 0 ) ) log 7/9 (ǫ/ P( w 0 ) ), E[ P( w T ) ] (σ m ) T P( w 0 ) < (7/9) T P( w 0 ) (7/9) log 7/9 (ǫ/ P( w0) ) P( w 0 ) = ǫ, thus we can derive (7). If we consider the number of gradient evaluations as the main computational complexity, then the total complexity can be obtained as (n+m)t = O((n+κ)log(/ǫ)).