Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 167 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 36 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 42 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 97 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 203 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 442 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 32 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A determinantal point process for column subset selection (1812.09771v1)

Published 23 Dec 2018 in stat.ML and cs.LG

Abstract: Dimensionality reduction is a first step of many machine learning pipelines. Two popular approaches are principal component analysis, which projects onto a small number of well chosen but non-interpretable directions, and feature selection, which selects a small number of the original features. Feature selection can be abstracted as a numerical linear algebra problem called the column subset selection problem (CSSP). CSSP corresponds to selecting the best subset of columns of a matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}{N \times d}$, where \emph{best} is often meant in the sense of minimizing the approximation error, i.e., the norm of the residual after projection of $X$ onto the space spanned by the selected columns. Such an optimization over subsets of ${1,\dots,d}$ is usually impractical. One workaround that has been vastly explored is to resort to polynomial-cost, random subset selection algorithms that favor small values of this approximation error. We propose such a randomized algorithm, based on sampling from a projection determinantal point process (DPP), a repulsive distribution over a fixed number $k$ of indices ${1,\dots,d}$ that favors diversity among the selected columns. We give bounds on the ratio of the expected approximation error for this DPP over the optimal error of PCA. These bounds improve over the state-of-the-art bounds of \emph{volume sampling} when some realistic structural assumptions are satisfied for $X$. Numerical experiments suggest that our bounds are tight, and that our algorithms have comparable performance with the \emph{double phase} algorithm, often considered to be the practical state-of-the-art. Column subset selection with DPPs thus inherits the best of both worlds: good empirical performance and tight error bounds.

Citations (23)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

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

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

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