syedameeng commited on
Commit
8228f51
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 7969146

Create CurvOpt-MathFoundations.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. CurvOpt-MathFoundations.md +249 -0
CurvOpt-MathFoundations.md ADDED
@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
+ # CurvOpt: Mathematical Foundations
2
+
3
+ ## Energy-Constrained Precision Allocation via Curvature and Information Theory
4
+
5
+ ---
6
+
7
+ ## 1. Problem Formulation
8
+
9
+ Let a trained neural network with parameters \( \theta \in \mathbb{R}^d \) minimize empirical risk:
10
+
11
+ \[
12
+ L(\theta) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ell(f_\theta(x_i), y_i)
13
+ \]
14
+
15
+ We introduce quantization:
16
+
17
+ \[
18
+ \theta_q = \theta + \varepsilon
19
+ \]
20
+
21
+ where \( \varepsilon \) represents quantization perturbation.
22
+
23
+ We seek precision assignments \( q_l \) per layer \( l \) solving:
24
+
25
+ \[
26
+ \min_{q_l \in \mathcal{Q}}
27
+ \sum_{l=1}^{L} \mathcal{E}_l(q_l)
28
+ \quad
29
+ \text{s.t.}
30
+ \quad
31
+ L(\theta_q) - L(\theta) \le \epsilon
32
+ \]
33
+
34
+ This is a constrained optimization problem over precision levels.
35
+
36
+ **Reference**
37
+
38
+ - Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). *Convex Optimization*. Cambridge University Press.
39
+
40
+ ---
41
+
42
+ ## 2. Second-Order Loss Perturbation
43
+
44
+ Assume \( L \) is twice continuously differentiable.
45
+
46
+ By Taylor expansion around \( \theta \):
47
+
48
+ \[
49
+ L(\theta + \varepsilon)
50
+ =
51
+ L(\theta)
52
+ +
53
+ \nabla L(\theta)^T \varepsilon
54
+ +
55
+ \frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^T H(\theta) \varepsilon
56
+ +
57
+ o(\|\varepsilon\|^2)
58
+ \]
59
+
60
+ where:
61
+
62
+ \[
63
+ H(\theta) = \nabla^2 L(\theta)
64
+ \]
65
+
66
+ Near a stationary point:
67
+
68
+ \[
69
+ \nabla L(\theta) \approx 0
70
+ \]
71
+
72
+ Thus:
73
+
74
+ \[
75
+ \Delta L
76
+ \approx
77
+ \frac{1}{2} \varepsilon^T H \varepsilon
78
+ \]
79
+
80
+ **Reference**
81
+
82
+ - Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. (2006). *Numerical Optimization*. Springer.
83
+
84
+ ---
85
+
86
+ ## 3. Spectral Bound via Rayleigh Quotient
87
+
88
+ Since \( H \) is symmetric:
89
+
90
+ \[
91
+ \lambda_{\min}(H) \|\varepsilon\|^2
92
+ \le
93
+ \varepsilon^T H \varepsilon
94
+ \le
95
+ \lambda_{\max}(H) \|\varepsilon\|^2
96
+ \]
97
+
98
+ Hence:
99
+
100
+ \[
101
+ \Delta L
102
+ \le
103
+ \frac{1}{2}
104
+ \lambda_{\max}(H)
105
+ \|\varepsilon\|^2
106
+ \]
107
+
108
+ Large eigenvalues correspond to sharp curvature and high sensitivity.
109
+
110
+ **Reference**
111
+
112
+ - Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). *Deep Learning*. MIT Press.
113
+
114
+ ---
115
+
116
+ ## 4. Trace Approximation via Hutchinson Estimator
117
+
118
+ Exact Hessian computation is infeasible.
119
+
120
+ We use:
121
+
122
+ \[
123
+ \operatorname{Tr}(H)
124
+ =
125
+ \mathbb{E}_{v}
126
+ \left[
127
+ v^T H v
128
+ \right]
129
+ \]
130
+
131
+ where \( v_i \sim \{-1,+1\} \) (Rademacher distribution).
132
+
133
+ This estimator is unbiased.
134
+
135
+ **Reference**
136
+
137
+ - Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2004). *Monte Carlo Statistical Methods*. Springer.
138
+
139
+ ---
140
+
141
+ ## 5. Quantization Noise Model
142
+
143
+ Uniform quantization with step size \( \Delta \):
144
+
145
+ \[
146
+ \varepsilon \sim \mathcal{U}\left(-\frac{\Delta}{2}, \frac{\Delta}{2}\right)
147
+ \]
148
+
149
+ Variance:
150
+
151
+ \[
152
+ \operatorname{Var}(\varepsilon)
153
+ =
154
+ \frac{\Delta^2}{12}
155
+ \]
156
+
157
+ Expected loss increase:
158
+
159
+ \[
160
+ \mathbb{E}[\Delta L]
161
+ \approx
162
+ \frac{1}{2}
163
+ \operatorname{Tr}(H)
164
+ \cdot
165
+ \frac{\Delta^2}{12}
166
+ \]
167
+
168
+ This connects precision (through \( \Delta \)) directly to curvature.
169
+
170
+ **Reference**
171
+
172
+ - Gallager, R. (1968). *Information Theory and Reliable Communication*. Wiley.
173
+
174
+ ---
175
+
176
+ ## 6. Information-Theoretic Layer Relevance
177
+
178
+ For layer \( l \):
179
+
180
+ \[
181
+ I(X_l ; Y_l)
182
+ =
183
+ \int p(x,y)
184
+ \log
185
+ \frac{p(x,y)}{p(x)p(y)}
186
+ \, dx\,dy
187
+ \]
188
+
189
+ Data Processing Inequality:
190
+
191
+ \[
192
+ I(X; Y_{l+1}) \le I(X; Y_l)
193
+ \]
194
+
195
+ Thus information cannot increase through deterministic transformations.
196
+
197
+ Layers with low marginal information contribution can tolerate larger perturbations.
198
+
199
+ **Reference**
200
+
201
+ - Cover, T., & Thomas, J. (2006). *Elements of Information Theory*. Wiley.
202
+
203
+ ---
204
+
205
+ ## 7. Constrained Energy Minimization
206
+
207
+ We combine curvature-based sensitivity and energy cost:
208
+
209
+ \[
210
+ \min_{q_l}
211
+ \sum_l \mathcal{E}_l(q_l)
212
+ +
213
+ \lambda
214
+ \left(
215
+ \sum_l
216
+ \frac{1}{24}
217
+ \operatorname{Tr}(H_l)
218
+ \Delta_l^2
219
+ -
220
+ \epsilon
221
+ \right)
222
+ \]
223
+
224
+ Using KKT optimality conditions:
225
+
226
+ \[
227
+ \nabla_{q_l} \mathcal{L} = 0
228
+ \]
229
+
230
+ This yields optimal precision allocation under a global accuracy constraint.
231
+
232
+ **Reference**
233
+
234
+ - Bertsekas, D. (1999). *Nonlinear Programming*. Athena Scientific.
235
+
236
+ ---
237
+
238
+ ## 8. Summary
239
+
240
+ CurvOpt is grounded in:
241
+
242
+ 1. Second-order perturbation theory
243
+ 2. Spectral sensitivity bounds
244
+ 3. Monte Carlo trace estimation
245
+ 4. Classical quantization noise modeling
246
+ 5. Shannon mutual information
247
+ 6. Constrained nonlinear optimization via KKT
248
+
249
+ All formulations above are standard results from established literature.