ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Digital Library logoTake a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.
A quasi-Newton approach to non-smooth convex optimization
Full text PdfPdf (632 KB)
Source ICML; Vol. 307 archive
Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning table of contents
Helsinki, Finland
Pages: 1216-1223  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-205-4
Authors
Jin Yu  NICTA, Canberra, Australia and Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
S. V. N. Vishwanathan  NICTA, Canberra, Australia and Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Simon Günter  NICTA, Canberra, Australia and Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Nicol N. Schraudolph  NICTA, Canberra, Australia and Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Sponsors
: Yahoo!
: Xerox
IBM : IBM
: NSF
Microsoft Research : Microsoft Research
: Machine Learning Journal/Springer
: Pascal
: University of Helsinki
: Federation of Finnish Learned Societies
: Intel Corporation
: Google
: Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 61,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1390156.1390309
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We extend the well-known BFGS quasi-Newton method and its limited-memory variant LBFGS to the optimization of non-smooth convex objectives. This is done in a rigorous fashion by generalizing three components of BFGS to subdifferentials: The local quadratic model, the identification of a descent direction, and the Wolfe line search conditions. We apply the resulting subLBFGS algorithm to L2-regularized risk minimization with binary hinge loss, and its direction-finding component to L1-regularized risk minimization with logistic loss. In both settings our generic algorithms perform comparable to or better than their counterparts in specialized state-of-the-art solvers.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
A. Belloni. Introduction to bundle methods. Technical report, Operation Research Center, M.I.T., 2005.
 
3
M. Haarala. Large-Scale Non-smooth Optimization. PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä, 2004.
 
4
J. Hiriart-Urruty and C. Lemaréchal. Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms, I and II, volume 305 and 306. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
5
 
6
 
7
A. Nedich and D. P. Bertsekas. Convergence rate of incremental subgradient algorithms. In S. Uryasev and P. M. Pardalos, editors, Stochastic Optimization: Algorithms and Applications, pages 263--304. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
 
8
J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright. Numerical Optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research. Springer, 1999.
9
 
10
F. Vojtěch and S. Sonnenburg. Optimized cutting plane algorithm for support vector machines. Technical Report 1, Fraunhofer Institute FIRST, December 2007. http://publica.fraunhofer.de/documents/N-66225.html.
 
11
J. Yu, S. V. N. Vishwanathan, S. Günter, and N. N. Schraudolph. A quasi-Newton approach to non-smooth convex optimization. Technical Report arXiv:0804.3835, April 2008. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3835.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Jin Yu: colleagues
S. V. N. Vishwanathan: colleagues
Simon Günter: colleagues
Nicol N. Schraudolph: colleagues