Linearized GMM Kernels and Normalized Random Fourier Features
This work improves kernel approximation efficiency for machine learning practitioners, though it is incremental as it builds on existing RFF and kernel methods.
The authors tackled the problem of high variance in random Fourier features (RFF) for approximating RBF kernels by proposing normalized RFF (NRFF) and introduced the generalized min-max (GMM) kernel with a linearization method (GCWS). They found that GMM outperforms the best-tuned RBF kernel on most of over 50 datasets and that GCWS requires substantially fewer samples than NRFF for comparable accuracy, with theoretical support showing lower variance.
The method of "random Fourier features (RFF)" has become a popular tool for approximating the "radial basis function (RBF)" kernel. The variance of RFF is actually large. Interestingly, the variance can be substantially reduced by a simple normalization step as we theoretically demonstrate. We name the improved scheme as the "normalized RFF (NRFF)". We also propose the "generalized min-max (GMM)" kernel as a measure of data similarity. GMM is positive definite as there is an associated hashing method named "generalized consistent weighted sampling (GCWS)" which linearizes this nonlinear kernel. We provide an extensive empirical evaluation of the RBF kernel and the GMM kernel on more than 50 publicly available datasets. For a majority of the datasets, the (tuning-free) GMM kernel outperforms the best-tuned RBF kernel. We conduct extensive experiments for comparing the linearized RBF kernel using NRFF with the linearized GMM kernel using GCWS. We observe that, to reach a comparable classification accuracy, GCWS typically requires substantially fewer samples than NRFF, even on datasets where the original RBF kernel outperforms the original GMM kernel. The empirical success of GCWS (compared to NRFF) can also be explained from a theoretical perspective. Firstly, the relative variance (normalized by the squared expectation) of GCWS is substantially smaller than that of NRFF, except for the very high similarity region (where the variances of both methods are close to zero). Secondly, if we make a model assumption on the data, we can show analytically that GCWS exhibits much smaller variance than NRFF for estimating the same object (e.g., the RBF kernel), except for the very high similarity region.