Precise analysis of ridge interpolators under heavy correlations -- a Random Duality Theory view

Mihailo Stojnic
6/13/2024
stat.MLcs.ITcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

We consider fully row/column-correlated linear regression models and study several classical estimators (including minimum norm interpolators (GLS), ordinary least squares (LS), and ridge regressors). We show that \emph{Random Duality Theory} (RDT) can be utilized to obtain precise closed form characterizations of all estimators related optimizing quantities of interest, including the \emph{prediction risk} (testing or generalization error). On a qualitative level out results recover the risk's well known non-monotonic (so-called double-descent) behavior as the number of features/sample size ratio increases. On a quantitative level, our closed form results show how the risk explicitly depends on all key model parameters, including the problem dimensions and covariance matrices. Moreover, a special case of our results, obtained when intra-sample (or time-series) correlations are not present, precisely match the corresponding ones obtained via spectral methods in [6,16,17,24].

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{stojnic2024precise,
  title  = {Precise analysis of ridge interpolators under heavy correlations -- a Random Duality Theory view},
  author = {Mihailo Stojnic},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2406.09199},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09199v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2406.09199.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2406.09199)

Discussion