Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

A Compositional Framework for First-Order Optimization (2403.05711v1)

Published 8 Mar 2024 in math.OC and math.CT

Abstract: Optimization decomposition methods are a fundamental tool to develop distributed solution algorithms for large scale optimization problems arising in fields such as machine learning and optimal control. In this paper, we present an algebraic framework for hierarchically composing optimization problems defined on hypergraphs and automatically generating distributed solution algorithms that respect the given hierarchical structure. The central abstractions of our framework are operads, operad algebras, and algebra morphisms, which formalize notions of syntax, semantics, and structure preserving semantic transformations respectively. These abstractions allow us to formally relate composite optimization problems to the distributed algorithms that solve them. Specifically, we show that certain classes of optimization problems form operad algebras, and a collection of first-order solution methods, namely gradient descent, Uzawa's algorithm (also called gradient ascent-descent), and their subgradient variants, yield algebra morphisms from these problem algebras to algebras of dynamical systems. Primal and dual decomposition methods are then recovered by applying these morphisms to certain classes of composite problems. Using this framework, we also derive a novel sufficient condition for when a problem defined by compositional data is solvable by a decomposition method. We show that the minimum cost network flow problem satisfies this condition, thereby allowing us to automatically derive a hierarchical dual decomposition algorithm for finding minimum cost flows on composite flow networks. We implement our operads, algebras, and algebra morphisms in a Julia package called AlgebraicOptimization.jl and use our implementation to empirically demonstrate that hierarchical dual decomposition outperforms standard dual decomposition on classes of flow networks with hierarchical structure.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. Stephen Boyd. Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 3(1):1–122, 2010.
  2. Block splitting for distributed optimization. Mathematical Programming Computation, 6(1):77–102, March 2014.
  3. Accelerated gradient methods and dual decomposition in distributed model predictive control. Automatica, 49(3):829–833, March 2013.
  4. A primal decomposition algorithm for distributed multistage scenario model predictive control. Journal of Process Control, 81:162–171, 2019.
  5. J. F. Benders. Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Numer. Math., 4(1):238–252, dec 1962.
  6. The Benders decomposition algorithm: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(3):801–817, June 2017.
  7. Notes on decomposition methods. Notes for EE364B, Stanford University, 2015.
  8. SnapVX: A Network-Based Convex Optimization Solver. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18:1–5, 2017.
  9. A graph-based modeling abstraction for optimization: Concepts and implementation in plasmo.jl. Mathematical Programming Computation, 14:699 – 747, 2022.
  10. David I. Spivak. The operad of wiring diagrams: formalizing a graphical language for databases, recursion, and plug-and-play circuits, May 2013. arXiv:1305.0297 [cs, math].
  11. Structured versus Decorated Cospans. Compositionality, 4:3, September 2022. arXiv:2101.09363 [math].
  12. A compositional framework for passive linear networks. Theory and Applications of Categories, 33(38):1158–1222, 2018.
  13. A Compositional Framework for Reaction Networks. Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 29(09):1750028, October 2017. arXiv:1704.02051 [math-ph].
  14. Categories in control. Theory and Applications of Categories, 30(24):836–881, 2015.
  15. Towards a compositional framework for convex analysis (with applications to probability theory), 2023.
  16. A compositional framework for markov processes. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 57(3), March 2016.
  17. Operadic Modeling of Dynamical Systems: Mathematics and Computation. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 372:192–206, November 2022. arXiv:2105.12282 [math].
  18. Riccardo Scattolini. Architectures for distributed and hierarchical model predictive control–a review. Journal of process control, 19(5):723–731, 2009.
  19. Theory of hierarchical, multilevel, systems. Elsevier, 2000.
  20. Control and coordination in hierarchical systems. John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
  21. Studies in Linear and Non-linear Programming. Standford University Press, 1958.
  22. Yuri Nesterov. Primal-dual subgradient methods for convex problems. Mathematical Programming, 120:221–259, 2009.
  23. Disciplined Convex Programming. In Leo Liberti and Nelson Maculan, editors, Global Optimization, volume 84, pages 155–210. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 2006. Series Title: Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications.
  24. Backprop as functor: A compositional perspective on supervised learning. In 2019 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 1–13. IEEE, 2019.
  25. Categorical foundations of gradient-based learning, 2021.
  26. Characterizing compositionality of lqr from the categorical perspective. Proceedings of the 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2023.
  27. Compositional game theory. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM/IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, pages 472–481, 2018.
  28. Compositional game theory, compositionally. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.12045, 2021.
  29. Seven sketches in compositionality: An invitation to applied category theory, 2018.
  30. E. Riehl. Category theory in context. Aurora: Dover modern math originals. Dover Publications, 2017.
  31. Steve Awodey. Category theory. Oxford university press, 2010.
  32. Physics, topology, logic and computation: a Rosetta Stone. Springer, 2011.
  33. R. Tyrrell Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, 1970.
  34. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, March 2004.
  35. Dan Shiebler. Generalized Optimization: A First Step Towards Category Theoretic Learning Theory. In Pandian Vasant, Ivan Zelinka, and Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, editors, Intelligent Computing & Optimization, pages 525–535, Cham, 2022. Springer International Publishing.
  36. Hypergraph Categories, January 2019. arXiv:1806.08304 [cs, math].
  37. Claudio Hermida. Representable Multicategories. Advances in Mathematics, 151(2):164–225, 2000.
  38. Brendan Fong. The Algebra of Open and Interconnected Systems, September 2016. arXiv:1609.05382 [math].
  39. Disciplined Saddle Programming, January 2023. arXiv:2301.13427 [cs, math].
  40. Subgradients. Notes for EE364B, Stanford University, 2022.
  41. Linear programming and network flows. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  42. Lester Randolph Ford. Flows in networks. Princeton University Press, 2015.
  43. Network flow programming. R.E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1987.
  44. Algorithms for network programming. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1980.
  45. James Evans. Optimization algorithms for networks and graphs. CRC Press, 2017.
  46. Network flows: Theory, applications and algorithms. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA Arrow, KJ (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York. Gibbard, A.(1973).“Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A general result”, Econometrica, 41:587–602, 1993.
  47. David P Williamson. Network flow algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  48. A distributed newton method for network optimization. In Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference, pages 2736–2741, Shanghai, China, December 2009. IEEE.
  49. Compositional scientific computing with catlab and semanticmodels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04831, 2020.
  50. Forward-mode automatic differentiation in Julia. arXiv:1607.07892 [cs.MS], 2016.
  51. On random graphs. i. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen, 1959.
  52. Optim: A mathematical optimization package for Julia. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(24):615, 2018.
  53. Compositional thermostatics. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 64(2), February 2023.
  54. Categorical foundations of gradient-based learning. In European Symposium on Programming, pages 1–28. Springer International Publishing Cham, 2022.
  55. Totally asynchronous primal-dual convex optimization in blocks, 2022.
Citations (2)

Summary

  • The paper presents an algebraic framework using operads and algebra morphisms to compose and solve optimization problems.
  • It demonstrates that methods such as gradient descent, Uzawa’s algorithm, and dual decomposition follow the proposed compositional structure.
  • Numerical experiments, like the minimum cost network flow problem, validate the framework’s efficiency and scalability.

An Algebraic Framework for Compositional Optimization

The paper presents an innovative algebraic framework for first-order optimization techniques, particularly aimed at dealing with large-scale problems that require distributed solutions. The main contribution is the formalism for composing optimization problems using constructs from category theory such as operads, operad algebras, and algebra morphisms. This abstract mathematical framework unlocks automated solutions to hierarchical optimization problems that are common in machine learning, control systems, and operational research.

Mathematical Foundations and Abstractions

The central abstractions are derived from category theory. The paper introduces undirected wiring diagrams (UWDs), which are illustrative hypergraphs with structured compositional semantics. The real innovation lies in using operads and algebra morphisms to relate these compositional structures with first-order optimization strategies.

  1. Operads and Operad Algebras: Operads give a syntax for composition, and the authors demonstrate how optimization problems can be framed as operad algebras. This enables an algebraic construction of complex problems by combining simpler subproblem structures.
  2. Algebra Morphisms: Through algebra morphisms, the paper establishes mappings from optimization problems to solution procedures. For instance, it is shown that gradient descent creates an algebra morphism from the operad algebra of optimization problems to an algebra of dynamical systems, capturing both the problem and solution dynamics.

Technical Contributions

The paper rigorously develops numerical and theoretical results across several dimensions of optimization:

  • Gradient Descent as an Algebra Morphism: It is established that gradient descent is an algebra morphism for differentiable minimization problems, showing cohesiveness between composite optimization problems and distributed algorithms based on their operadic formulation.
  • Uzawa's and Dual Decomposition: Extending previous frameworks, the authors demonstrate that Uzawa’s algorithm—a method for handling equality constraints—and dual decomposition methods respect hierarchical structures, thus unifying previously discrete algorithms under a singular algebraic framework.
  • Compositional Data Condition: The authors introduce a theoretical condition that provides a principled way to determine when decomposing a problem via its data structure is valid. This can guide automated derivational pathways from problem definition to solution algorithm construction.

Numerical Experiments and Real-World Applications

The framework is implemented in a Julia package, lending computational efficiency and practical applicability. This is showcased through the minimum cost network flow problem, where a hierarchical composition of the network results in faster computational solutions compared to traditional decomposition methods. Numerical experiments validate the effectiveness of exploiting compositional structure, particularly highlighting performance gains in problems that naturally align with hierarchical decomposition.

Implications and Future Directions

This framework bridges discrete distributed optimization algorithms into a continuous, coherent methodology by leveraging category theory. It is a compelling step towards more automated and efficient problem-solving paradigms in optimization.

Future directions might include extending this framework to more complex decomposition methods, such as the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), and developing asynchronous algorithms that exploit the algebraic properties identified. Additionally, incorporating step-size optimization into the morphism framework holds potential for a broader class of optimization problems.

Overall, this work represents a conceptual and practical progression in how algebraic and categorical methods can systematically simplify and solve distributed optimization problems.

Slide Deck Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Whiteboard

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

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.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 2 tweets and received 103 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: