Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-optimisation-for-data-science-course-of-the-university-of-oxford/2023/2/f/solution

The printed distance needs a square. The native PDF, paper page 3, prints in the final bound, but the general conclusion from (5) contains . We first prove the corrected statement and then show that the printed version can fail.
Take the expectation in (5), use the tower property, and sum over . The squared Euclidean distances form a telescoping sum:
Discard the final nonnegative squared Euclidean distance. The smallest of numbers is at most their arithmetic mean, so
This is an bound above the stochastic gradient noise floor for the best expected objective function value. By Jensen's inequality, it also bounds for the averaged iterate , because is a convex function.
To test the printed version, take one component function, , with , and . This convex quadratic function has , hence it has a -Lipschitz gradient. The stochastic gradient descent update is deterministic, its conditional variance is zero, and the assumed positive bound is valid. At , the new iterate is , so
Thus the printed inequality is false under its stated assumptions. The squared Euclidean distance in the corrected bound resolves the defect.

New to topics? Read the docs here!