ResearchTrend.AI
  • Papers
  • Communities
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Pricing
Papers
Communities
Social Events
Terms and Conditions
Pricing
Parameter LabParameter LabTwitterGitHubLinkedInBlueskyYoutube

© 2025 ResearchTrend.AI, All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Papers
  3. 2302.04859
19
8

Projection-free Online Exp-concave Optimization

9 February 2023
Dan Garber
Ben Kretzu
ArXivPDFHTML
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(nlog⁡T)O(n\log{}T)O(nlogT), where nnn is the dimension and TTT is the number of prediction rounds (treating all other quantities as constants and assuming TTT 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)O(T)O(T) calls to a LOO, guarantees in worst case regret bounded by O~(n2/3T2/3)\widetilde{O}(n^{2/3}T^{2/3})O(n2/3T2/3) (ignoring all quantities except for n,Tn,Tn,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 ρ\rhoρ, ρ<<n\rho << nρ<<n, the regret bound improves to O~(ρ2/3T2/3)\widetilde{O}(\rho^{2/3}T^{2/3})O(ρ2/3T2/3), and by applying standard deterministic sketching techniques, both the space and average additional per-iteration runtime requirements are only O(ρn)O(\rho{}n)O(ρn) (instead of O(n2)O(n^2)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 TTT, suffer from regret/oracle complexity that scales with n\sqrt{n}n​ or worse.

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper