Dynamic Regret of Online Mirror Descent for Relatively Smooth Convex Cost Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of online convex optimization algorithms in a dynamic environment is often expressed in terms of the dynamic regret, which measures the decision maker’s performance against a sequence of time-varying comparators. In the analysis of the dynamic regret, prior works often assume Lipschitz continuity or uniform smoothness of the cost functions. However, there are many important cost functions in practice that do not satisfy these conditions. In such cases, prior analyses are not applicable and fail to guarantee the optimization performance. In this letter, we show that it is possible to bound the dynamic regret, even when neither Lipschitz continuity nor uniform smoothness is present. We adopt the notion of relative smoothness with respect to some user-defined regularization function, which is a much milder requirement on the cost functions. We first show that under relative smoothness, the dynamic regret has an upper bound based on the path length and functional variation. We then show that with an additional condition of relatively strong convexity, the dynamic regret can be bounded by the path length and gradient variation. These regret bounds provide performance guarantees to a wide variety of online optimization problems that arise in different application domains. Finally, we present numerical experiments that demonstrate the advantage of adopting a regularization function under which the cost functions are relatively smooth.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".