Daily Papers

Generative data augmentation, which scales datasets by obtaining fake labeled examples from a trained conditional generative model, boosts classification performance in various learning tasks including (semi-)supervised learning, few-shot learning, and adversarially robust learning. However, little work has theoretically investigated the effect of generative data augmentation. To fill this gap, we establish a general stability bound in this not independently and identically distributed (non-i.i.d.) setting, where the learned distribution is dependent on the original train set and generally not the same as the true distribution. Our theoretical result includes the divergence between the learned distribution and the true distribution. It shows that generative data augmentation can enjoy a faster learning rate when the order of divergence term is o(maxleft( log(m)beta_m, 1 / m)right), where m is the train set size and beta_m is the corresponding stability constant. We further specify the learning setup to the Gaussian mixture model and generative adversarial nets. We prove that in both cases, though generative data augmentation does not enjoy a faster learning rate, it can improve the learning guarantees at a constant level when the train set is small, which is significant when the awful overfitting occurs. Simulation results on the Gaussian mixture model and empirical results on generative adversarial nets support our theoretical conclusions. Our code is available at https://github.com/ML-GSAI/Understanding-GDA.

In federated learning, participating clients typically possess non-i.i.d. data, posing a significant challenge to generalization to unseen distributions. To address this, we propose a Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization scheme called WAFL. Leveraging its duality, we frame WAFL as an empirical surrogate risk minimization problem, and solve it using a local SGD-based algorithm with convergence guarantees. We show that the robustness of WAFL is more general than related approaches, and the generalization bound is robust to all adversarial distributions inside the Wasserstein ball (ambiguity set). Since the center location and radius of the Wasserstein ball can be suitably modified, WAFL shows its applicability not only in robustness but also in domain adaptation. Through empirical evaluation, we demonstrate that WAFL generalizes better than the vanilla FedAvg in non-i.i.d. settings, and is more robust than other related methods in distribution shift settings. Further, using benchmark datasets we show that WAFL is capable of generalizing to unseen target domains.

On-policy reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms perform policy updates using i.i.d. trajectories collected by the current policy. However, after observing only a finite number of trajectories, on-policy sampling may produce data that fails to match the expected on-policy data distribution. This sampling error leads to noisy updates and data inefficient on-policy learning. Recent work in the policy evaluation setting has shown that non-i.i.d., off-policy sampling can produce data with lower sampling error than on-policy sampling can produce. Motivated by this observation, we introduce an adaptive, off-policy sampling method to improve the data efficiency of on-policy policy gradient algorithms. Our method, Proximal Robust On-Policy Sampling (PROPS), reduces sampling error by collecting data with a behavior policy that increases the probability of sampling actions that are under-sampled with respect to the current policy. Rather than discarding data from old policies -- as is commonly done in on-policy algorithms -- PROPS uses data collection to adjust the distribution of previously collected data to be approximately on-policy. We empirically evaluate PROPS on both continuous-action MuJoCo benchmark tasks as well as discrete-action tasks and demonstrate that (1) PROPS decreases sampling error throughout training and (2) improves the data efficiency of on-policy policy gradient algorithms. Our work improves the RL community's understanding of a nuance in the on-policy vs off-policy dichotomy: on-policy learning requires on-policy data, not on-policy sampling.