Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 164 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 21 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 72 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 204 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 450 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 34 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Projection-free Online Exp-concave Optimization (2302.04859v1)

Published 9 Feb 2023 in cs.LG and math.OC

Abstract: We consider the setting of online convex optimization (OCO) with \textit{exp-concave} losses. The best regret bound known for this setting is $O(n\log{}T)$, where $n$ is the dimension and $T$ is the number of prediction rounds (treating all other quantities as constants and assuming $T$ is sufficiently large), and is attainable via the well-known Online Newton Step algorithm (ONS). However, ONS requires on each iteration to compute a projection (according to some matrix-induced norm) onto the feasible convex set, which is often computationally prohibitive in high-dimensional settings and when the feasible set admits a non-trivial structure. In this work we consider projection-free online algorithms for exp-concave and smooth losses, where by projection-free we refer to algorithms that rely only on the availability of a linear optimization oracle (LOO) for the feasible set, which in many applications of interest admits much more efficient implementations than a projection oracle. We present an LOO-based ONS-style algorithm, which using overall $O(T)$ calls to a LOO, guarantees in worst case regret bounded by $\widetilde{O}(n{2/3}T{2/3})$ (ignoring all quantities except for $n,T$). However, our algorithm is most interesting in an important and plausible low-dimensional data scenario: if the gradients (approximately) span a subspace of dimension at most $\rho$, $\rho << n$, the regret bound improves to $\widetilde{O}(\rho{2/3}T{2/3})$, and by applying standard deterministic sketching techniques, both the space and average additional per-iteration runtime requirements are only $O(\rho{}n)$ (instead of $O(n2)$). This improves upon recently proposed LOO-based algorithms for OCO which, while having the same state-of-the-art dependence on the horizon $T$, suffer from regret/oracle complexity that scales with $\sqrt{n}$ or worse.

Citations (6)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (2)

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.