Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
156 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Euclidean distance compression via deep random features (2403.01327v1)

Published 2 Mar 2024 in cs.CG and cs.DS

Abstract: Motivated by the problem of compressing point sets into as few bits as possible while maintaining information about approximate distances between points, we construct random nonlinear maps $\varphi_\ell$ that compress point sets in the following way. For a point set $S$, the map $\varphi_\ell:\mathbb{R}d \to N{-1/2}{-1,1}N$ has the property that storing $\varphi_\ell(S)$ (a \emph{sketch} of $S$) allows one to report pairwise squared distances between points in $S$ up to some multiplicative $(1\pm \epsilon)$ error with high probability as long as the minimum distance is not too small compared to $\epsilon$. The maps $\varphi_\ell$ are the $\ell$-fold composition of a certain type of random feature mapping. Moreover, we determine how large $N$ needs to be as a function of $\epsilon$ and other parameters of the point set. Compared to existing techniques, our maps offer several advantages. The standard method for compressing point sets by random mappings relies on the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma which implies that if a set of $n$ points is mapped by a Gaussian random matrix to $\mathbb{R}k$ with $k =\Theta(\epsilon{-2}\log n)$, then pairwise distances between points are preserved up to a multiplicative $(1\pm \epsilon)$ error with high probability. The main advantage of our maps $\varphi_\ell$ over random linear maps is that ours map point sets directly into the discrete cube $N{-1/2}{-1,1}N$ and so there is no additional step needed to convert the sketch to bits. For some range of parameters, our maps $\varphi_\ell$ produce sketches which require fewer bits of storage space.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. D. Achlioptas. Database-friendly random projections. In P. Buneman, editor, Proceedings of the Twentieth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, May 21-23, 2001, Santa Barbara, California, USA. ACM, 2001.
  2. An algorithmic theory of learning: Robust concepts and random projection. Mach. Learn., 63(2):161–182, 2006.
  3. M. Charikar. Similarity estimation techniques from rounding algorithms. In J. H. Reif, editor, Proceedings on 34th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 19-21, 2002, Montréal, Québec, Canada, pages 380–388. ACM, 2002.
  4. Y. Cho and L. K. Saul. Kernel methods for deep learning. In Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. D. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, and A. Culotta, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22: 23rd Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2009. Proceedings of a meeting held 7-10 December 2009, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pages 342–350. Curran Associates, Inc., 2009.
  5. S. Dasgupta and A. Gupta. An elementary proof of a theorem of Johnson and Lindenstrauss. Random Structures Algorithms, 22(1):60–65, 2003.
  6. P. Indyk and R. Motwani. Approximate nearest neighbors: Towards removing the curse of dimensionality. In J. S. Vitter, editor, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, Dallas, Texas, USA, May 23-26, 1998, pages 604–613. ACM, 1998.
  7. P. Indyk and T. Wagner. Near-optimal (Euclidean) metric compression. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 710–723. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2017.
  8. P. Indyk and T. Wagner. Optimal (Euclidean) metric compression. SIAM J. Comput., 51(3):467–491, 2022.
  9. W. B. Johnson and J. Lindenstrauss. Extensions of Lipschitz mappings into a Hilbert space. In Conference in modern analysis and probability (New Haven, Conn., 1982), volume 26 of Contemp. Math., pages 189–206. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1984.
  10. Efficient search for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensional spaces. SIAM J. Comput., 30(2):457–474, 2000.
  11. P. Li. Binary and multi-bit coding for stable random projections. In A. Singh and X. J. Zhu, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2017, 20-22 April 2017, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, volume 54 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1430–1438. PMLR, 2017.
  12. X. Li and P. Li. Random projections with asymmetric quantization. In H. M. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d’Alché-Buc, E. B. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, December 8-14, 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pages 10857–10866, 2019.
  13. Z. Liao and R. Couillet. On the spectrum of random features maps of high dimensional data. In J. Dy and A. Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3063–3071. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018.
  14. Beating the direct sum theorem in communication complexity with implications for sketching. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1738–1756. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2012.
  15. Quantized embeddings: An efficient and universal nearest neighbor method for cloud-based image retrieval. In SPIE Optics and Photonics, San Diego, CA, 25-29 August 2013.
  16. S. S. Vempala. The random projection method, volume 65 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004. With a foreword by Christos H. Papadimitriou.
  17. Sharpening and generalizations of Carlson’s double inequality for the arc cosine function. Hacet. J. Math. Stat., 41(2):201–209, 2012.

Summary

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