Minimax experimental design: Bridging the gap between statistical and
  worst-case approaches to least squares regression
  In experimental design, we are given a large collection of vectors, each with
a hidden response value that we assume derives from an underlying linear model,
and we wish to pick a small subset of the vectors such that querying the
corresponding responses will lead to a good estimator of the model. A classical
approach in statistics is to assume the responses are linear, plus zero-mean
i.i.d. Gaussian noise, in which case the goal is to provide an unbiased
estimator with smallest mean squared error (A-optimal design). A related
approach, more common in computer science, is to assume the responses are
arbitrary but fixed, in which case the goal is to estimate the least squares
solution using few responses, as quickly as possible, for worst-case inputs.
Despite many attempts, characterizing the relationship between these two
approaches has proven elusive. We address this by proposing a framework for
experimental design where the responses are produced by an arbitrary unknown
distribution. We show that there is an efficient randomized experimental design
procedure that achieves strong variance bounds for an unbiased estimator using
few responses in this general model. Nearly tight bounds for the classical
A-optimality criterion, as well as improved bounds for worst-case responses,
emerge as special cases of this result. In the process, we develop a new
algorithm for a joint sampling distribution called volume sampling, and we
propose a new i.i.d. importance sampling method: inverse score sampling. A key
novelty of our analysis is in developing new expected error bounds for
worst-case regression by controlling the tail behavior of i.i.d. sampling via
the jointness of volume sampling. Our result motivates a new minimax-optimality
criterion for experimental design which can be viewed as an extension of both
A-optimal design and sampling for worst-case regression.
