Online mirror descent and dual averaging: keeping pace in the dynamic case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online mirror descent (OMD) and dual averaging (DA) -- two fundamental algorithms for online convex optimization -- are known to have very similar (and sometimes identical) performance guarantees when used with a fixed learning rate. Under dynamic learning rates, however, OMD is provably inferior to DA and suffers a linear regret, even in common settings such as prediction with expert advice. We modify the OMD algorithm through a simple technique that we call stabilization. We give essentially the same abstract regret bound for OMD with stabilization and for DA by modifying the classical OMD convergence analysis in a careful and modular way that allows for straightforward and flexible proofs. Simple corollaries of these bounds show that OMD with stabilization and DA enjoy the same performance guarantees in many applications -- even under dynamic learning rates. We also shed light on the similarities between OMD and DA and show simple conditions under which stabilized-OMD and DA generate the same iterates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it