A Statistical Perspective on Randomized Sketching for Ordinary Least-Squares

We consider statistical as well as algorithmic aspects of solving large-scale least-squares (LS) problems using randomized sketching algorithms. For a LS problem with input data $(X, Y) \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p} \times \mathbb{R}^n$, sketching algorithms use a sketching matrix, $S\in\mathbb{R}^{r \times n}$ with $r \ll n$. Then, rather than solving the LS problem using the full data $(X,Y)$, sketching algorithms solve the LS problem using only the sketched data $(SX, SY)$. Prior work has typically adopted an algorithmic perspective, in that it has made no statistical assumptions on the input $X$ and $Y$, and instead it has been assumed that the data $(X,Y)$ are fixed and worst-case (WC). Prior results show that, when using sketching matrices such as random projections and leverage-score sampling algorithms, with $p < r \ll n$, the WC error is the same as solving the original problem, up to a small constant. From a statistical perspective, we typically consider the mean-squared error performance of randomized sketching algorithms, when data $(X, Y)$ are generated according to a statistical model $Y = X \beta + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a noise process. We provide a rigorous comparison of both perspectives leading to insights on how they differ. To do this, we first develop a framework for assessing algorithmic and statistical aspects of randomized sketching methods. We then consider the statistical prediction efficiency (PE) and the statistical residual efficiency (RE) of the sketched LS estimator; and we use our framework to provide upper bounds for several types of random projection and random sampling sketching algorithms. Among other results, we show that the RE can be upper bounded when $p < r \ll n$ while the PE typically requires the sample size $r$ to be substantially larger. Lower bounds developed in subsequent results show that our upper bounds on PE can not be improved.Comment: 27 pages, 5 figure

Efficient Benchmarking of Algorithm Configuration Procedures via Model-Based Surrogates

The optimization of algorithm (hyper-)parameters is crucial for achieving peak performance across a wide range of domains, ranging from deep neural networks to solvers for hard combinatorial problems. The resulting algorithm configuration (AC) problem has attracted much attention from the machine learning community. However, the proper evaluation of new AC procedures is hindered by two key hurdles. First, AC benchmarks are hard to set up. Second and even more significantly, they are computationally expensive: a single run of an AC procedure involves many costly runs of the target algorithm whose performance is to be optimized in a given AC benchmark scenario. One common workaround is to optimize cheap-to-evaluate artificial benchmark functions (e.g., Branin) instead of actual algorithms; however, these have different properties than realistic AC problems. Here, we propose an alternative benchmarking approach that is similarly cheap to evaluate but much closer to the original AC problem: replacing expensive benchmarks by surrogate benchmarks constructed from AC benchmarks. These surrogate benchmarks approximate the response surface corresponding to true target algorithm performance using a regression model, and the original and surrogate benchmark share the same (hyper-)parameter space. In our experiments, we construct and evaluate surrogate benchmarks for hyperparameter optimization as well as for AC problems that involve performance optimization of solvers for hard combinatorial problems, drawing training data from the runs of existing AC procedures. We show that our surrogate benchmarks capture overall important characteristics of the AC scenarios, such as high- and low-performing regions, from which they were derived, while being much easier to use and orders of magnitude cheaper to evaluate

A Primer on Causality in Data Science

Many questions in Data Science are fundamentally causal in that our objective is to learn the effect of some exposure, randomized or not, on an outcome interest. Even studies that are seemingly non-causal, such as those with the goal of prediction or prevalence estimation, have causal elements, including differential censoring or measurement. As a result, we, as Data Scientists, need to consider the underlying causal mechanisms that gave rise to the data, rather than simply the pattern or association observed in those data. In this work, we review the 'Causal Roadmap' of Petersen and van der Laan (2014) to provide an introduction to some key concepts in causal inference. Similar to other causal frameworks, the steps of the Roadmap include clearly stating the scientific question, defining of the causal model, translating the scientific question into a causal parameter, assessing the assumptions needed to express the causal parameter as a statistical estimand, implementation of statistical estimators including parametric and semi-parametric methods, and interpretation of our findings. We believe that using such a framework in Data Science will help to ensure that our statistical analyses are guided by the scientific question driving our research, while avoiding over-interpreting our results. We focus on the effect of an exposure occurring at a single time point and highlight the use of targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) with Super Learner.Comment: 26 pages (with references); 4 figure

Parallelizing RRT on large-scale distributed-memory architectures

This paper addresses the problem of parallelizing the Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) algorithm on large-scale distributed-memory architectures, using the Message Passing Interface. We compare three parallel versions of RRT based on classical parallelization schemes. We evaluate them on different motion planning problems and analyze the various factors influencing their performance

Uplift Modeling with Multiple Treatments and General Response Types

Randomized experiments have been used to assist decision-making in many areas. They help people select the optimal treatment for the test population with certain statistical guarantee. However, subjects can show significant heterogeneity in response to treatments. The problem of customizing treatment assignment based on subject characteristics is known as uplift modeling, differential response analysis, or personalized treatment learning in literature. A key feature for uplift modeling is that the data is unlabeled. It is impossible to know whether the chosen treatment is optimal for an individual subject because response under alternative treatments is unobserved. This presents a challenge to both the training and the evaluation of uplift models. In this paper we describe how to obtain an unbiased estimate of the key performance metric of an uplift model, the expected response. We present a new uplift algorithm which creates a forest of randomized trees. The trees are built with a splitting criterion designed to directly optimize their uplift performance based on the proposed evaluation method. Both the evaluation method and the algorithm apply to arbitrary number of treatments and general response types. Experimental results on synthetic data and industry-provided data show that our algorithm leads to significant performance improvement over other applicable methods