Non-monotone Submodular Maximization with Nearly Optimal Adaptivity and Query Complexity

Submodular maximization is a general optimization problem with a wide range of applications in machine learning (e.g., active learning, clustering, and feature selection). In large-scale optimization, the parallel running time of an algorithm is governed by its adaptivity, which measures the number of sequential rounds needed if the algorithm can execute polynomially-many independent oracle queries in parallel. While low adaptivity is ideal, it is not sufficient for an algorithm to be efficient in practice---there are many applications of distributed submodular optimization where the number of function evaluations becomes prohibitively expensive. Motivated by these applications, we study the adaptivity and query complexity of submodular maximization. In this paper, we give the first constant-factor approximation algorithm for maximizing a non-monotone submodular function subject to a cardinality constraint $k$ that runs in $O(\log(n))$ adaptive rounds and makes $O(n \log(k))$ oracle queries in expectation. In our empirical study, we use three real-world applications to compare our algorithm with several benchmarks for non-monotone submodular maximization. The results demonstrate that our algorithm finds competitive solutions using significantly fewer rounds and queries.Comment: 12 pages, 8 figure

Structured Sparsity: Discrete and Convex approaches

Compressive sensing (CS) exploits sparsity to recover sparse or compressible signals from dimensionality reducing, non-adaptive sensing mechanisms. Sparsity is also used to enhance interpretability in machine learning and statistics applications: While the ambient dimension is vast in modern data analysis problems, the relevant information therein typically resides in a much lower dimensional space. However, many solutions proposed nowadays do not leverage the true underlying structure. Recent results in CS extend the simple sparsity idea to more sophisticated {\em structured} sparsity models, which describe the interdependency between the nonzero components of a signal, allowing to increase the interpretability of the results and lead to better recovery performance. In order to better understand the impact of structured sparsity, in this chapter we analyze the connections between the discrete models and their convex relaxations, highlighting their relative advantages. We start with the general group sparse model and then elaborate on two important special cases: the dispersive and the hierarchical models. For each, we present the models in their discrete nature, discuss how to solve the ensuing discrete problems and then describe convex relaxations. We also consider more general structures as defined by set functions and present their convex proxies. Further, we discuss efficient optimization solutions for structured sparsity problems and illustrate structured sparsity in action via three applications.Comment: 30 pages, 18 figure

Adversarially Robust Submodular Maximization under Knapsack Constraints

We propose the first adversarially robust algorithm for monotone submodular maximization under single and multiple knapsack constraints with scalable implementations in distributed and streaming settings. For a single knapsack constraint, our algorithm outputs a robust summary of almost optimal (up to polylogarithmic factors) size, from which a constant-factor approximation to the optimal solution can be constructed. For multiple knapsack constraints, our approximation is within a constant-factor of the best known non-robust solution. We evaluate the performance of our algorithms by comparison to natural robustifications of existing non-robust algorithms under two objectives: 1) dominating set for large social network graphs from Facebook and Twitter collected by the Stanford Network Analysis Project (SNAP), 2) movie recommendations on a dataset from MovieLens. Experimental results show that our algorithms give the best objective for a majority of the inputs and show strong performance even compared to offline algorithms that are given the set of removals in advance.Comment: To appear in KDD 201