Small coresets via negative dependence: DPPs, linear statistics, and concentration

Determinantal point processes (DPPs) are random configurations of points with tunable negative dependence. Because sampling is tractable, DPPs are natural candidates for subsampling tasks, such as minibatch selection or coreset construction. A \emph{coreset} is a subset of a (large) training set, such that minimizing an empirical loss averaged over the coreset is a controlled replacement for the intractable minimization of the original empirical loss. Typically, the control takes the form of a guarantee that the average loss over the coreset approximates the total loss uniformly across the parameter space. Recent work has provided significant empirical support in favor of using DPPs to build randomized coresets, coupled with interesting theoretical results that are suggestive but leave some key questions unanswered. In particular, the central question of whether the cardinality of a DPP-based coreset is fundamentally smaller than one based on independent sampling remained open. In this paper, we answer this question in the affirmative, demonstrating that \emph{DPPs can provably outperform independently drawn coresets}. In this vein, we contribute a conceptual understanding of coreset loss as a \emph{linear statistic} of the (random) coreset. We leverage this structural observation to connect the coresets problem to a more general problem of concentration phenomena for linear statistics of DPPs, wherein we obtain \emph{effective concentration inequalities that extend well-beyond the state-of-the-art}, encompassing general non-projection, even non-symmetric kernels. The latter have been recently shown to be of interest in machine learning beyond coresets, but come with a limited theoretical toolbox, to the extension of which our result contributes. Finally, we are also able to address the coresets problem for vector-valued objective functions, a novelty in the coresets literature.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 818N6/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-08

Summary

This paper studies corsets and aims to construct them using determinantal point processes (DPPs). The authors show that DPPs can provably outperform independently drawn corsets due to linear statistics and better concentration of DPPs.

Strengths

- The topic of coreset problems is essential in machine learning. - The paper is technically solid, providing interesting theoretical results. - Empirical results confirm the power of DPPs in independent data.

Weaknesses

- The writing can be improved. There are many theorems and remarks in the paper, which makes it confused about the main contribution. The theorems are technical but without explanations. What are the conclusions and applications of these theorems? - Lack of coreset literature. For instance, Cohen-Addad, V., Larsen, K.G., Saulpic, D., Schwiegelshohn, C., & Sheikh-Omar, O.A. (2022). Improved Coresets for Euclidean $k$-Means; 2) Huang, Lingxiao, Jian Li and Xuan Wu. “On Optimal Coreset Construction for Euclidean $(k,z)$-Clustering.

Questions

By reading the paper, I am still confused about when DPPs outperform importance sampling. Could you give some concrete examples, e.g., under what optimization problem and what dataset, what is the coreset size by DPP v.s. by importance sampling? -- Thanks for the response. I increase my score to 5.

Rating

6

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer 5TaP8/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-12

Summary

The paper proves concentration inequalities for linear statistics of samples form a DPP. In particular, a guarantee for the coreset sampling problem is shown: If the coreset is sampled from a DPP then the loss over the coreset approaches the loss over the full dataset faster then when the coreset is sampled uniformly. The superiority of DPP samples over uniform samples is demonstrated in a k-means application on toy data and MNIST data.

Strengths

* proper theoretical justification of results that have been empirically observed in previous work * The paper is well written, e.g., it contains a compact introduction to coresets that one can easily follow even if unfamiliar with coresets. * The assumptions of the theoretical results are stated clearly and are discussed. * informative and honest discussion section about limitations and interesting future work directions * The results generalize beyond the coreset problem and could potentially be interesting for other DPP application areas, too. * The results also apply to non-symmetric kernels.

Weaknesses

* The markers in Figure 1 (a) and 2 (a) are different sizes, but I can't find information on what a marker's size encodes. I would appreciate a clarification. * The comparison to the related work "Tremblay et al 2019" (see line 52-55) could be a little bit more detailed. It's just mentioned that this other paper also contains theoretical results for the same/ a similar setting, but not what their nature is and how they differ from the results in the present paper (I don't doubt they do, but I think 1-2 sentences more on this would be useful). * The "stratified" baseline seems much stronger than the uniform baseline and the DPP sampler—at least, where it is straightforward to apply. Other heuristical sampling methods that encode repulsiveness between data items without being DPPs might also be preferable in large-scale machine learning applications, including coreset problems. The practical relevance might be limited, but I don't consider this a major issue as the paper is of a theoretical nature.

Questions

Remark 3.3 mentioned that the assumption on a set's cardinality holds for most kernels of interest. Are there more examples other than the projection kernels? I assume it holds for the Gaussian kernel as it is used in the experiments? Are there examples of common kernels where the assumption does not hold?

Rating

8

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

yes, there is a dedicated limitations sections that I perceive as accurate

Reviewer koaH6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper presents a study on the use of Determinantal Point Processes (DPPs) for constructing coresets in machine learning tasks. DPPs are random configurations of points with negative dependence, making them suitable for subsampling tasks like minibatch selection or coreset construction. Therefore, it is natural to ask can DPP-based coresets have smaller size than the independent-sampling-based coresets. The paper answers the question, demonstrating that DPP-based method outperforms. To achieve this, the author provide a new understanding of coreset loss as a linear statistic of the random point set. Then they connect the coreset construction to the concentration inequalities of the linear statistic and show that a suitable DPP yields a coreset of size $o(\varepsilon^{-2})$.

Strengths

- New concentration inequalities for linear statistics of DPPs are presented, which are applicable to general non-projection and non-symmetric kernels. - The DPPs-based coresets have a smaller theoretical size than the independent-sampling-based coresets. - The paper introduces the study of coresets for vector-valued objective functions, a topic that holds independent interest.

Weaknesses

see the questions

Questions

- What is the time complexity of DPP-based coreset construction? - The paper proposes some assumptions on the DPPs. Are these assumptions fair compared to previous methods?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

none

Reviewer 329X7/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-16

Summary

This work improves on the concentration bounds on DPP for coresets by explicitly relying on the fact that loss based coresets are linear functionals. To this end, this paper also add the coreset results for Non-symmetric kernels, (including additive coresets) expanding on the previous results on DPP Coresets (which were solely in the hermitian regime). Paper compares against other sampling based theoretical coresets (including DPPs) for approximation errors.

Strengths

I like the fact that this paper extended the DPP bounds to Non-symmetric kernels. Overall the paper is not difficult to parse through, despite many theoretical statements.

Weaknesses

I cannot exactly pin down the weakness in this work since I'm not expert in this area, however, I'd like to point out a few things that can help to understand this work better. - When going from lipschitz (Peres and Pemantle) to linear functional concentration, what exactly changes which leads to the better bounds? - Can the authors have a side by side comparision of the sample complexity for the previous existing works (DPP for coresets paper), in a tablular form to understand the contributions of this work better? - What is an intuitive explanation of the fact that the range of $\epsilon$ got tighter in non-symmetric case? - Can there be chaining related improvements to further improve the provided bounds, as done in Bhatt and Bilmes 2021? - Is it possible to provide some experimental results with different choice of kernels including non-symmetric? - Writing Suggestion: It might improve readability of $\|\varphi\|_{\infty}$ is replaced by some constant bounding the loss function. References: - Tighter m-DPP Coreset Sample Complexity Bounds, Bhatt and Bilmes 2021. Subset ML at ICML'21

Questions

Refer to the weakness.

Rating

7

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Refer to the weakness.

Reviewer 329X2024-08-08

Thanks for the rebuttal, increasing score.

Thanks for responding to my questions! I believe this discussion can help the manuscript. I am raising my scores.

Reviewer 5TaP2024-08-12

Thank you for the clarifications. They make sense to me. I keep my positive score.

Reviewer koaH2024-08-14

Thank you for your responses. The authors have addressed some of my questions. I would like keep my positive score.

Reviewer 818N2024-08-14

Thank you for your responses. The authors have addressed my questions. I would like to raise my score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (spotlight)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC