Akshat Valse

Stochastic foundations of machine learning · Iowa State University

research

Research

Six projects. The first three are ordered by how central they are to one question: what can be proved about the stochastic objects machine learning already runs on. The answer is usually less than one would hope, and more than gets checked. The other three, in computer science, carry the same habits, a closed form where one exists and a registered prediction where one does not, into the systems that run large language models.

Advisor
David Herzog
Department
Mathematics
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
SGLD · annealed Langevin · diffusion correctors

Langevin dynamics: sampling, discretization bias, transport coefficients

The overdamped diffusion leaves invariant, so discretizing it gives a sampler. That sampler is not a niche method. Stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics is its Euler–Maruyama discretization with a minibatch gradient; the inner loop of annealed Langevin sampling is the same chain at a fixed noise level; the corrector step of a predictor–corrector diffusion sampler is the same chain against a learned score. In all three the Metropolis correction is dropped, usually without comment, and the invariant law that results is .

I measure that gap where it is computable rather than bounding it. On an anisotropic Gaussian the unadjusted chain is a coordinatewise AR(1) whose stationary variance solves exactly,

so a measured bias that disagrees indicts the sampler, not the theory. On a two-component mixture the crossing rate follows Kramers' law with fitted slopes and against the predicted . Together the two results are the argument for noise schedules. Bias is polynomial in and can be halved by halving the step; mixing is exponential in the barrier, and no step size buys back an exponential.

The second thread is transport coefficients: how fast a sampler actually covers a rough landscape, as against how fast it would move on a flat one.

Fig. 3. Effective diffusivity in the cosine potential, β = 1, 1024 independent replicas, Euler–Maruyama at h = 0.01. The dashed line is the Lifson–Jackson value Deff = 1/I₀(1)² = 0.6238603604…, computed from the Bessel series and cross-checked against quadrature. Nothing here is fitted, and the trace is unsmoothed: the residual at t = 1000 is the transient, not Monte Carlo error, and the band is ±1 s.e. across four disjoint replica groups.

In one periodic dimension this is not an asymptotic bound but an identity. Lifson–Jackson gives

the averages taken over one period. For both are , so at , where , the answer is , and the simulation either finds it or is wrong. Any Langevin sampler, including the inner loop of a score-based one, can be pointed at this potential and required to return that number. One that gets the invariant measure right and the diffusivity wrong has a bug in its time discretization.

Advisor
Ruoyu Wu
Department
Mathematics
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
PAC-Bayes · mean-field limits of training · SGD escape

Large-deviation asymptotics for mean-field interacting systems

Large deviations sits underneath a good deal of learning theory. Sanov's theorem and the Donsker–Varadhan variational formula for relative entropy are the machinery behind PAC-Bayes generalization bounds and variational mutual-information estimators. Freidlin–Wentzell small-noise theory is how escape times from saddles and shallow basins are analyzed for SGD and for Langevin-based optimizers. And the empirical-measure LDP for a mean-field interacting particle system is structurally the same construction that sits one level above the mean-field limit of wide-network training.

I work on rate functionals and the variational characterization of rare events for the empirical measure of such a system, currently in the setting of load balancing. The object is a large-deviation principle on path space; the rate functional then supplies the change of measure for an importance-sampling estimator of rare events, benchmarked against the analytic rate function by exact and Monte Carlo numerics. The application domain is queueing, but the technique carries well past it.

The results are held back until the preprint is out. What the figure below shows instead is the mechanism the whole method rests on, on the one target where the answer is known to machine precision.

Fig. 4. The mechanism, on a target with a known answer. Estimating P(Z > a) for Z ~ 𝒩(0,1) by crude Monte Carlo (hollow) and by importance sampling under the tilted law 𝒩(a, 1) with weight exp(−aX + a²/2) (filled), against the exact Φ(−a), dashed. Both carry ±1 s.e. Watch crude Monte Carlo degrade rather than fail cleanly: its markers drift off the curve, go bright as the relative error climbs, survive on a single chance hit two decades out of place with an error bar spanning the axis, and then stop appearing. The tilted estimator tracks the exact curve five decades further down. The readout reports where each method last held a relative standard error under 50%. The reference comes from an erf series and the Laplace continued fraction, agreeing with SciPy to 7×10⁻¹⁵.

Naive Monte Carlo does not merely get slow in this regime. It stops being an estimator: it returns zero occurrences and no information about the magnitude. Tilting the sampling law so the rare event becomes typical, then reweighting by the likelihood ratio, recovers an answer, and the tilt has to come from somewhere principled, because a badly chosen change of measure produces an estimator with infinite variance that fails silently. In the Gaussian case the right tilt is a mean shift and can be written down. In the mean-field model it comes from the large-deviation rate function, and checking whether the asymptotics have actually taken hold at the system sizes anyone simulates is the part of the project I find most worth doing.

Advisor
Jue Yan
Department
Mathematics
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
learned operators · neural surrogates · rollout stability

Stability of neural approximations to evolution equations

A cell-average neural network solver learns a one-step finite-volume operator

a learned surrogate for a numerical flux. Conservation comes for free: the same network is evaluated at both faces of a cell, so the update telescopes whatever the weights turn out to be. Stability does not. Networks trained identically up to the random seed, reaching losses you cannot tell apart, behave completely differently under long rollouts, and since the losses are indistinguishable the loss cannot tell you which one you have. It is the autoregressive-surrogate failure mode, in the simplest setting where classical numerical analysis can still say something about it.

A trained solver is still a numerical scheme: its weights are frozen once training ends, so what you have is a fixed deterministic update rule that happened to be fitted rather than derived. Numerical analysis has a long history of asking whether update rules of that kind are stable. I am adapting von Neumann analysis to this setting, deriving the linearised amplification factor of the learned time-stepping scheme and characterizing how perturbations propagate through it, toward a condition on the weights alone that can be checked before committing to an expensive rollout.

Advisor
Ali Jannesari
Department
Computer Science
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
LLM serving · metastable failures · admission control

Metastable failures in prefix-cached LLM agent serving

An agent works in a loop: model call, tool call, model call, re-sending the whole growing conversation each turn. Serving engines such as SGLang and vLLM keep that shared prefix in a GPU KV cache so a follow-up turn costs a fraction of the first. The cache is small, though. When enough agent sessions compete for it, a session evicted while it waits on a tool has to recompute everything on its next turn, and that extra work keeps the cache full and evicts the next session. The question is whether a short burst of traffic can push an otherwise healthy server into a self-sustaining all-miss, low-throughput state, a metastable failure, and which scheduling and admission mechanisms prevent it.

Three instruments. A discrete-event simulator of a continuous-batching engine with prefix caching, covering scheduling policies, eviction rules, memory-allocation modes and re-implementations of recently proposed mechanisms. A queueing-theoretic thrashing-curve model that connects the classical working-set and metastability literature to agent workloads and says when caching helps, when it collapses, and when admission control restores stability. And a load-testing harness that drives a production engine, SGLang serving a 7B-parameter model on NVIDIA A100s, on Iowa State's Nova cluster through SLURM, with the prediction for each run committed before the run and paired control arms under common random numbers. On the real engine, cache reuse collapses sharply once concurrent sessions exceed the cache's working set and throughput falls severalfold, which matches the simulator. Whether the collapse outlives the burst that caused it is the experiment in progress.

Advisor
Hongyang Gao
Department
Computer Science
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
conformal prediction · delayed feedback · volatility forecasting

Online calibration of neural volatility forecasts with early, one-sided feedback

A forecast of a cumulative quantity, the realized variance of an asset over the next day, say, is scored only when the horizon ends. Every online calibration method therefore learns one full horizon late, which is exactly when it is slowest to react to a shift. But the increments of such a quantity are non-negative, so the running sum is monotone, and if it crosses the issued upper bound before the horizon ends the miss is certain at once. Coverage is confirmed only at the end. The feedback is early, but one-sided.

The method is a model-agnostic layer on top of any quantile forecaster. It credits certain early misses to an online integrator as soon as they are confirmed, keeps explicit accounts of forecasts still pending so the eventual miss count is known to lie in an interval rather than treated as settled, and applies a bounded correction only when the accounting justifies it. The long-run coverage guarantee under early crediting, bounded correction and missing data is proved and checked numerically over tens of thousands of adversarial runs. Whether this recovers faster after a volatility jump than delayed-feedback conformal baselines, without widening the bounds the rest of the time, is the question, and the answer is being settled on a regime-shift simulation with exact oracle quantiles and on a sealed real-data test set, against pre-registered hypotheses.

Advisor
Yang Li
Department
Computer Science
Status
Ongoing

Bears on
survival analysis · rare-event estimation · agent evaluation

Reliability of tool-using agents

Two questions about agents that run for a long time and sometimes fail. When one stalls, when is restarting it worth more than waiting, and what in the distribution of run times decides that? And how do you estimate the probability of a failure too rare for direct simulation to reach, the same problem as the rare-event work above with an agent in place of a queue? Two pilots on real agents, one on restart policies and one on rare failures, each with its kill criteria registered before any data, with the direction still being chosen between them.

preprints

Preprints will be posted here as they become available.