Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Distributed Experimental Design Networks

Published 10 Jan 2024 in cs.NI | (2401.04996v1)

Abstract: As edge computing capabilities increase, model learning deployments in diverse edge environments have emerged. In experimental design networks, introduced recently, network routing and rate allocation are designed to aid the transfer of data from sensors to heterogeneous learners. We design efficient experimental design network algorithms that are (a) distributed and (b) use multicast transmissions. This setting poses significant challenges as classic decentralization approaches often operate on (strictly) concave objectives under differentiable constraints. In contrast, the problem we study here has a non-convex, continuous DR-submodular objective, while multicast transmissions naturally result in non-differentiable constraints. From a technical standpoint, we propose a distributed Frank-Wolfe and a distributed projected gradient ascent algorithm that, coupled with a relaxation of non-differentiable constraints, yield allocations within a $1-1/e$ factor from the optimal. Numerical evaluations show that our proposed algorithms outperform competitors with respect to model learning quality.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (28)
  1. Y. Liu, Y. Li, L. Su, E. Yeh, and S. Ioannidis, “Experimental design networks: A paradigm for serving heterogeneous learners under networking constraints,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2022.   IEEE, 2022, pp. 210–219.
  2. M. Mohammadi and A. Al-Fuqaha, “Enabling cognitive smart cities using big data and machine learning: Approaches and challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2018.
  3. V. Albino, U. Berardi, and R. M. Dangelico, “Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives,” Journal of urban technology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3–21, 2015.
  4. A. A. Bian, B. Mirzasoleiman, J. Buhmann, and A. Krause, “Guaranteed non-convex optimization: Submodular maximization over continuous domains,” in Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.   PMLR, 2017, pp. 111–120.
  5. T. Soma and Y. Yoshida, “A generalization of submodular cover via the diminishing return property on the integer lattice,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015.
  6. S. H. Low and D. E. Lapsley, “Optimization flow control. i. basic algorithm and convergence,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on networking, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 861–874, 1999.
  7. D. S. Lun, N. Ratnakar, R. Koetter, M. Médard, E. Ahmed, and H. Lee, “Achieving minimum-cost multicast: A decentralized approach based on network coding,” in Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies., vol. 3.   IEEE, 2005, pp. 1607–1617.
  8. D. S. Lun, N. Ratnakar, M. Médard, R. Koetter, D. R. Karger, T. Ho, E. Ahmed, and F. Zhao, “Minimum-cost multicast over coded packet networks,” IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2608–2623, 2006.
  9. T. Horel, S. Ioannidis, and S. Muthukrishnan, “Budget feasible mechanisms for experimental design,” in Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics.   Springer, 2014, pp. 719–730.
  10. Y. Guo, J. Dy, D. Erdogmus, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, S. Ostmo, J. P. Campbell, M. F. Chiang, and S. Ioannidis, “Accelerated experimental design for pairwise comparisons,” in SDM.   SIAM, 2019, pp. 432–440.
  11. N. Gast, S. Ioannidis, P. Loiseau, and B. Roussillon, “Linear regression from strategic data sources,” ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–24, 2020.
  12. Y. Guo, P. Tian, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, S. Ostmo, J. P. Campbell, M. F. Chiang, D. Erdogmus, J. G. Dy, and S. Ioannidis, “Experimental design under the bradley-terry model.” in IJCAI, 2018, pp. 2198–2204.
  13. X. Huan and Y. M. Marzouk, “Simulation-based optimal bayesian experimental design for nonlinear systems,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 232, no. 1, pp. 288–317, 2013.
  14. G. Calinescu, C. Chekuri, M. Pal, and J. Vondrák, “Maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid constraint,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1740–1766, 2011.
  15. A. Krause and D. Golovin, “Submodular function maximization.” 2014.
  16. A. Nedić and A. Ozdaglar, “Subgradient methods for saddle-point problems,” Journal of optimization theory and applications, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 205–228, 2009.
  17. S. A. Alghunaim and A. H. Sayed, “Linear convergence of primal–dual gradient methods and their performance in distributed optimization,” Automatica, vol. 117, p. 109003, 2020.
  18. D. Feijer and F. Paganini, “Stability of primal–dual gradient dynamics and applications to network optimization,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1974–1981, 2010.
  19. G. Tychogiorgos, A. Gkelias, and K. K. Leung, “A non-convex distributed optimization framework and its application to wireless ad-hoc networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 4286–4296, 2013.
  20. A. Mokhtari, H. Hassani, and A. Karbasi, “Decentralized submodular maximization: Bridging discrete and continuous settings,” in International conference on machine learning.   PMLR, 2018, pp. 3616–3625.
  21. A. Rinaldo, “Sub-gaussian vectors and bound for the their norm.” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.stat.cmu.edu/~arinaldo/Teaching/36709/S19/Scribed_Lectures/Feb21_Shenghao.pdf
  22. H. Hassani, M. Soltanolkotabi, and A. Karbasi, “Gradient methods for submodular maximization,” in NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 5843–5853.
  23. J. Kleinberg, “The small-world phenomenon: An algorithmic perspective,” in STOC, 2000.
  24. D. Rossi and G. Rossini, “Caching performance of content centric networks under multi-path routing (and more),” Telecom ParisTech, Tech. Rep., 2011.
  25. S. Ioannidis, A. Chaintreau, and L. Massoulié, “Optimal and scalable distribution of content updates over a mobile social network,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2009.   IEEE, 2009, pp. 1422–1430.
  26. F. P. Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. H. Tan, “Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,” Journal of the Operational Research society, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 237–252, 1998.
  27. A. G. Akritas, E. K. Akritas, and G. I. Malaschonok, “Various proofs of sylvester’s (determinant) identity,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, vol. 42, no. 4-6, pp. 585–593, 1996.
  28. C. L. Canonne, “A short note on poisson tail bounds,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ccanonne/files/misc/2017-poissonconcentration.pdf

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.