4
$\begingroup$

Reading the book "Deep Learning" by Goodfellow et al., in section 7.8 (for ref. Deep Learning - Chapter 7), I came across a demonstration of why early stopping can be interpreted as a regularization method. For a linear model the expression of the "distance" between the weights vector evaluated after $\tau$ steps and the optimal (zero gradient) weight vector $w^*$ is, under local Taylor series approximation of the loss function: \begin{align} w^{(\tau)} - w^*=(I-\epsilon H)(w^{(\tau-1)}-w^*), \end{align} where $H$ is the Hessian matrix of the loss function with respect to $w$ evaluated at $w^*$. After eigendecomposition, $H=Q\Lambda Q^T$: \begin{align} Q^T(w^{(\tau)}-w^*) = (I-\epsilon \Lambda)Q^T(w^{(\tau-1)} - w^*). \end{align} The author, then, assuming small $\epsilon: |1-\lambda_i|<1$ and initial point $w^{(0)}=0$, obtains the following identity: \begin{align} Q^T w^{(\tau)}=[I-(I-\epsilon\Lambda)^\tau]Q^T w^*. \end{align}

I tried to prove it this way, partially by "reverse engineering": with $A=I-\epsilon\Lambda$ \begin{align} Q^T w^{(\tau)} &=AQ^T w^{(\tau-1)} + (I-A)Q^T w^*,\\ Q^Tw^{(1)}&=(I-A)Q^T w^*, \text{ because $w^{(0)}=0$},\\ Q^T w^{(2)} &=AQ^Tw^{(1)}+(I-A)Q^Tw^*\\ &=A\color{red}{Q^T}(I-A)Q^Tw^*+(I-A)Q^Tw^*\\ &=[A\color{red}{Q^T}(I-A)+(I-A)]Q^Tw^*\\ &=(A\color{red}{Q^T}-A\color{red}{Q^T}A+I-A)Q^Tw^*\\ &=[I-(A\color{red}{Q^T}A-A\color{red}{Q^T}+A)]Q^Tw^*. \end{align} How does (or should, right?) $(AQ^TA-AQ^T+A)=A^2$ given the assumptions?

Edit: The expression I obtained for $Q^Tw^{(2)}$ is wrong. $Q^Tw^{(1)} = (I-A)Q^Tw^*$, not $\color{red}{Q^T}(I-A)Q^Tw^*$.

I propose a continuation with a proof by induction of the proposition \begin{align} Q^Tw^{(\tau)}=(I-A^\tau)Q^Tw^*, \end{align} whose base case ($\tau=1$) has already been demonstrated. Checking if the proposition holds for $\tau+1$, assuming it holds for $\tau$: \begin{align} Q^Tw^{(\tau+1)}&=AQ^Tw^{(\tau)}+(I-A)Q^Tw^*\\ &= A(I-A^\tau)Q^Tw^*+(I-A)Q^Tw^*\\ &= (I-A^{\tau+1})Q^Tw^*\\ &= [I-(I-\epsilon\Lambda)^{\tau+1}]Q^Tw^* \quad\square \end{align}

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Let us denote for further brevity $u^{(\tau)} = Q^{\tau} w^{(\tau)}, u^{*} = Q^{\tau} w^{*}$. Then the equation connecting $\tau $ and $\tau - 1$ can be rewritten as: $$ u^{(\tau)} = (1 - \epsilon \Lambda) u^{(\tau- 1)} + \varepsilon \Lambda u^{*} $$ Let us suppose, that the solution has the form (the power law iteration makes this assumption natural): $$ u^{(\tau)} = (1 - \epsilon \Lambda)^{(\tau)} x + y $$ For some vectors $x, y$. Since $u^{(0)} = 0$ then $y = -x$.

The substitution of this ansatz gives: $$ (1 - \epsilon \Lambda)^{\tau} x - x = (1 - \epsilon \Lambda)^{\tau} x - (1 - \epsilon \Lambda) x + \varepsilon \Lambda u^{*} $$ Hence: $$ x = -u^{*} \rightarrow u^{(\tau)} = (I - (1 - \epsilon \Lambda)^{\tau}) u^{*} $$ Returning back to the original variables $w$ we get the desired results.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ How does the power law iteration make the assumed form natural and, most importantly, valid? Is it related to the fact that $\epsilon$ is small? $\endgroup$
    – caccolona
    Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 19:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @caccolona no, in this form $\varepsilon$ doesn't have to be small. The only requirement is $|1 - \varepsilon \lambda_i| < 1$ for power iteration to shrink. The relation between the following 2 steps is just a Geometric_progression in matrix form. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, so, if I correctly understood, the constraint on $\epsilon$ is only required for the optimization purpose. Anyways I found the error in my tentative proof and added an alternative to yours in the main post. Thanks $\endgroup$
    – caccolona
    Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 22:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.