convex loss
- North America > United States > Colorado > Boulder County > Boulder (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > New Mexico > Los Alamos County > Los Alamos (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales > Sydney (0.04)
- Asia > China > Shanghai > Shanghai (0.04)
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Asia > China > Shanghai > Shanghai (0.05)
- Oceania > Australia (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Metro Vancouver Regional District > Vancouver (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > Ohio (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Dane County > Madison (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
Online Frank-Wolfe with Arbitrary Delays
The online Frank-Wolfe (OFW) method has gained much popularity for online convex optimization due to its projection-free property. Previous studies show that OFW can attain an $O(T^{3/4})$ regret bound for convex losses and an $O(T^{2/3})$ regret bound for strongly convex losses. However, they assume that each gradient queried by OFW is revealed immediately, which may not hold in practice and limits the application of OFW. To address this limitation, we propose a delayed variant of OFW, which allows gradients to be delayed by arbitrary rounds. The main idea is to perform an update similar to OFW after receiving any delayed gradient, and play the latest decision for each round. Despite its simplicity, we prove that our delayed variant of OFW is able to achieve an $O(T^{3/4}+dT^{1/4})$ regret bound for convex losses and an $O(T^{2/3}+d\log T)$ regret bound for strongly convex losses, where $d$ is the maximum delay. This is quite surprising since under a relatively large amount of delay (e.g., $d=O(\sqrt{T})$ for convex losses and $d=O(T^{2/3}/\log T)$ for strongly convex losses), the delayed variant of OFW enjoys the same regret bound as that of the original OFW.
Online Convex Optimization Over Erdos-Renyi Random Networks
The work studies how node-to-node communications over an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random network influence distributed online convex optimization, which is vital in solving large-scale machine learning in antagonistic or changing environments. At per step, each node (computing unit) makes a local decision, experiences a loss evaluated with a convex function, and communicates the decision with other nodes over a network. The node-to-node communications are described by the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi rule, where independently each link takes place with a probability $p$ over a prescribed connected graph. The objective is to minimize the system-wide loss accumulated over a finite time horizon. We consider standard distributed gradient descents with full gradients, one-point bandits and two-points bandits for convex and strongly convex losses, respectively. We establish how the regret bounds scale with respect to time horizon $T$, network size $N$, decision dimension $d$, and an algebraic network connectivity. The regret bounds scaling with respect to $T$ match those obtained by state-of-the-art algorithms and fundamental limits in the corresponding centralized online optimization problems, e.g., $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T}) $ and $\mathcal{O}(\ln(T)) $ regrets are established for convex and strongly convex losses with full gradient feedback and two-points information, respectively. For classical Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi networks over all-to-all possible node communications, the regret scalings with respect to the probability $p$ are analytically established, based on which the tradeoff between the communication overhead and computation accuracy is clearly demonstrated. Numerical studies have validated the theoretical findings.
- North America > United States > Colorado > Boulder County > Boulder (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > China > Zhejiang Province > Ningbo (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Dane County > Madison (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)