Machine Learning (stat.ML)

Abstract: Many recent theoretical works on \emph{meta-learning} aim to achieve guarantees in leveraging similar representational structures from related tasks towards simplifying a target task. Importantly, the main aim in theory works on the subject is to understand the extent to which convergence rates -- in learning a common representation -- \emph{may scale with the number $N$ of tasks} (as well as the number of samples per task). First steps in this setting demonstrate this property when both the shared representation amongst tasks, and task-specific regression functions, are linear. This linear setting readily reveals the benefits of aggregating tasks, e.g., via averaging arguments. In practice, however, the representation is often highly nonlinear, introducing nontrivial biases in each task that cannot easily be averaged out as in the linear case. In the present work, we derive theoretical guarantees for meta-learning with nonlinear representations. In particular, assuming the shared nonlinearity maps to an infinite-dimensional RKHS, we show that additional biases can be mitigated with careful regularization that leverages the smoothness of task-specific regression functions,

Abstract: Amortized variational inference (A-VI) is a method for approximating the intractable posterior distributions that arise in probabilistic models. The defining feature of A-VI is that it learns a global inference function that maps each observation to its local latent variable's approximate posterior. This stands in contrast to the more classical factorized (or mean-field) variational inference (F-VI), which directly learns the parameters of the approximating distribution for each latent variable. In deep generative models, A-VI is used as a computational trick to speed up inference for local latent variables. In this paper, we study A-VI as a general alternative to F-VI for approximate posterior inference. A-VI cannot produce an approximation with a lower Kullback-Leibler divergence than F-VI's optimal solution, because the amortized family is a subset of the factorized family. Thus a central theoretical problem is to characterize when A-VI still attains F-VI's optimal solution. We derive conditions on both the model and the inference function under which A-VI can theoretically achieve F-VI's optimum. We show that for a broad class of hierarchical models, including deep generative models, it is possible to close the gap between A-VI and F-VI. Further, for an even broader class of models, we establish when and how to expand the domain of the inference function to make amortization a feasible strategy. Finally, we prove that for certain models -- including hidden Markov models and Gaussian processes -- A-VI cannot match F-VI's solution, no matter how expressive the inference function is. We also study A-VI empirically [...]

Abstract: Despite the empirical success and practical significance of (relational) knowledge distillation that matches (the relations of) features between teacher and student models, the corresponding theoretical interpretations remain limited for various knowledge distillation paradigms. In this work, we take an initial step toward a theoretical understanding of relational knowledge distillation (RKD), with a focus on semi-supervised classification problems. We start by casting RKD as spectral clustering on a population-induced graph unveiled by a teacher model. Via a notion of clustering error that quantifies the discrepancy between the predicted and ground truth clusterings, we illustrate that RKD over the population provably leads to low clustering error. Moreover, we provide a sample complexity bound for RKD with limited unlabeled samples. For semi-supervised learning, we further demonstrate the label efficiency of RKD through a general framework of cluster-aware semi-supervised learning that assumes low clustering errors. Finally, by unifying data augmentation consistency regularization into this cluster-aware framework, we show that despite the common effect of learning accurate clusterings, RKD facilitates a "global" perspective through spectral clustering, whereas consistency regularization focuses on a "local" perspective via expansion.