We revisit the standard perturbation-based approach of Abernethy et al. (2008) in the context of unconstrained Bandit Linear Optimization (uBLO). We show the surprising result that in the unconstrained setting, this approach effectively reduces Bandit Linear Optimization (BLO) to a standard Online Linear Optimization (OLO) problem. Our framework improves on prior work in several ways. First, we derive expected-regret guarantees when our perturbation scheme is combined with comparator-adaptive OLO algorithms, leading to new insights about the impact of different adversarial models on the resulting comparator-adaptive rates. We also extend our analysis to dynamic regret, obtaining the optimal $\sqrt{P_T}$ path-length dependencies without prior knowledge of $P_T$. We then develop the first high-probability guarantees for both static and dynamic regret in uBLO. Finally, we discuss lower bounds on the static regret, and prove the folklore $Ω(\sqrt{dT})$ rate for adversarial linear bandits on the unit Euclidean ball, which is of independent interest.

We study dynamic regret minimization in unconstrained adversarial linear bandit problems. In this setting, a learner must minimize the cumulative loss relative to an arbitrary sequence of comparators $\boldsymbol{u}_1,\ldots,\boldsymbol{u}_T$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, but receives only point-evaluation feedback on each round. We provide a simple approach to combining the guarantees of several bandit algorithms, allowing us to optimally adapt to the number of switches $S_T = \sum_t\mathbb{I}\{\boldsymbol{u}_t \neq \boldsymbol{u}_{t-1}\}$ of an arbitrary comparator sequence. In particular, we provide the first algorithm for linear bandits achieving the optimal regret guarantee of order $\mathcal{O}\big(\sqrt{d(1+S_T) T}\big)$ up to poly-logarithmic terms without prior knowledge of $S_T$, thus resolving a long-standing open problem.

We derive an online learning algorithm with improved regret guarantees for ``easy'' loss sequences. We consider two types of ``easiness'': (a) stochastic loss sequences and (b) adversarial loss sequences with small effective range of the losses. While a number of algorithms have been proposed for exploiting small effective range in the full information setting, Gerchinovitz and Lattimore [2016] have shown the impossibility of regret scaling with the effective range of the losses in the bandit setting. We show that just one additional observation per round is sufficient to circumvent the impossibility result. The proposed Second Order Difference Adjustments (SODA) algorithm requires no prior knowledge of the effective range of the losses, $\varepsilon$, and achieves an $O(\varepsilon \sqrt{KT \ln K}) + \tilde{O}(\varepsilon K \sqrt[4]{T})$ expected regret guarantee, where $T$ is the time horizon and $K$ is the number of actions. The scaling with the effective loss range is achieved under significantly weaker assumptions than those made by Cesa-Bianchi and Shamir [2018] in an earlier attempt to circumvent the impossibility result. We also provide a regret lower bound of $\Omega(\varepsilon\sqrt{T K})$, which almost matches the upper bound. In addition, we show that in the stochastic setting SODA achieves an $O\left(\sum_{a:\Delta_a> 0} \frac{K\varepsilon^2}{\Delta_a}\right)$ pseudo-regret bound that holds simultaneously with the adversarial regret guarantee. In other words, SODA is safe against an unrestricted oblivious adversary and provides improved regret guarantees for at least two different types of ``easiness'' simultaneously.

In Euclidean space, OCO boasts a robust theoretical foundation and numerous real-world applications, such as online load balancing (Molinaro, 2017), optimal control (Li et al., 2019), revenue maximization (Lin et al., 2019), and portfolio management (Jézéquel et al., 2022).

Consider the multi-armed bandits (MAB) problem (Auer et al., 2002a,b), which is a useful framework Typically, the losses are assumed to have a support on a bounded interval (e.g., Moreover, while the former ones enjoy a logarithmic regret (i.e., These performance discrepancies motivated the study of the Best-of-Both-W orlds (BOBW) setting.