this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about this function:
f(x) = abs(x) - cos(x)
Setting the first derivative equal to zero leads to trouble, as the derivative doesn't exist at the minimum, and there are infinitely many points which have zero slope. Nevertheless, the function has a clear minimum which gradient descent of any finite step size should find.
Except you could get stuck at an arbitary saddle point
Isn't the probability of getting exactly on one 0 though?
of course, every locally lipschitz function is differentiable almost everywhere, i.e., the set of points where it is not differentiable is a measure zero set. So if you drew a point randomly (with distribution absolutely continuous w.r.t. the lebesgue measure) then you avoid such points with probability. However, this has NOTHING to do with actually performing an algorithm like gradient descent - in these algorithms you are NOT simply drawing points randomly and you cannot guarantee you avoid these points a priori.