arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Guangjian Zhang

Publications and source records attributed to Guangjian Zhang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Exact Recovery Thresholds for Weighted Data Selection in Vector-Valued Linear Regression

We resolve the threshold part of Question 4 of the COLT 2025 open problem "Data Selection for Regression Tasks" of Hanneke, Moran, Shlimovich and Yehudayoff. In vector-valued linear regression with square loss $\ell_{(x,y)}(W)=|Wx-y|_2^2$, where $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and the learner is the empirical risk minimizer of minimal Frobenius norm, we prove that the minimal budget of weighted examples that recovers the full-data loss on every finite dataset is exactly $n^*(d,m)=(m+1)d$. We further determine two more values of the weighted selection profile $F_w(d,m,n)$: at the near-threshold budget, $F_w(d,m,(m+1)d-1)=1+\frac{1}{dm^2}$, and at the spanning budget, $F_w(d,m,d)=d+1$ for every $m$, while $F_w(d,m,n)=\infty$ for $n<d$. For the smallest open intermediate cell $(d,m)=(2,2)$ we prove $F_w(2,2,3)\in[13/8,15/8]$ and $F_w(2,2,4)\in[5/4,3/2]$, reduce the conjectured exact values $13/8$ and $5/4$ to a finite moment problem on the circle with at most seven atoms, and establish strong structural evidence for the conjecture. The upper-bound techniques (a fixed-basis conic compression lemma, a determinant-facet rigidity theorem for maximal certificates, and sharp sparsification lemmas for zero-mean weighted point systems) are of independent interest. As a byproduct we correct an erroneous claim circulating in a recent unrefereed preprint, exhibiting an explicit dataset with $m=2$ on which no weighted selection of $2d$ points recovers the optimal loss. All results are new only for $m\ge 2$; the scalar case $m=1$ is due to Hanneke et al.

cs.LG

Exact Risk Ratios for Weighted Data Selection in Linear Regression

Hanneke, Moran, Shlimovich and Yehudayoff (COLT 2025) posed the following open problem. A selector sees a finite dataset $D \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}$, picks at most $n$ examples together with nonnegative weights, and hands the weighted least squares objective to the minimum-norm ERM. Writing $F_w(d,n)$ for the worst-case ratio between the loss of the returned predictor on all of $D$ and the optimal loss, they proved $F_w(d,n)=\infty$ for $n<d$, $F_w(d,d)=d+1$ and $F_w(d,n)=1$ for $n \ge 2d$, and asked for the value in the open regime $d<n<2d$. We determine this value in several cases. For every $d$ we prove $F_w(d,2d-1)=1+1/d$, which confirms a claim stated without proof in the original note. We further prove $F_w(3,4)=5/3$ and $F_w(4,5)=2$, the two smallest cells not covered by the endpoint formula. For every intermediate budget $n=d+k$ we prove the lower bound $F_w(d,d+k) \ge 1+Γ_{d,k}$, where $Γ_{d,k}$ is an explicit harmonic quantity over balanced partitions, and we show that this bound is the exact minimax value over the class of datasets whose whitened gradient systems carry an orthogonal circuit-block structure. All three exact values match $1+Γ_{d,k}$, and we conjecture that equality holds throughout the open regime. The upper bound proofs run on a common geometric spine: a rigidity theorem for positive spanning configurations of loss gradients, classifications and structural reductions of small positive bases in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^4$, and a dimension-free extremal-basis argument that converts sign-cone geometry into five-point selections. We also give explicit counterexamples showing that several shorter routes fail, and constructive polynomial-time selection algorithms for all proved cases.

cs.LG