Skip to content

Sharp Oracle-Regret Tradeoffs for Projection-Free Online Convex Optimization

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 15 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The regret attainable in online convex optimization when access to the feasible set is limited to an exact linear optimization oracle is characterized and a curvature-dependent lower bound is identified above which the general characterization remains sharp.

Abstract

We characterize the regret attainable in online convex optimization when access to the feasible set is limited to an exact linear optimization oracle. The learner is given an inscribed ball and a diameter bound and must remain feasible on every consistent instance. For convex $G$-Lipschitz losses, diameter at most $D$, a total allowance of $Q$ oracle calls, and a strict limit of $B$ calls per round, the dimension-free minimax expected regret is $\Theta(GD\max\{\sqrt T,T/(1+\min\{Q,BT\})^{1/4}\})$. The lower bound applies to arbitrary randomized learners. Universal feasibility first forces each action into the hull of the supplied ball and the preceding oracle replies. A fixed-body construction then couples fresh phase directions to a shared simplex, making useful replies costly repeatedly even though all losses have a common minimizer. A counted approximate-gradient method with interleaved blocks attains the matching rate. Total-budget and strict per-round guarantees follow as special cases, including the $T^{3/4}$ rate with one call per round and the quadratic total budget needed for $\sqrt T$ regret. For prescribed smoothness $\beta$, an analytic construction yields a curvature-dependent lower bound and identifies the threshold above which the general characterization remains sharp.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Lower Bounds for Linear-Oracle Online Learning

Can a constant number of linear minimizations per round improve on the $T^{3/4}$ regret rate of online Frank-Wolfe on general convex sets? Weibel et al. conjectured that fixed-coefficient methods cannot. We prove their conjecture and extend the lower bound to every deterministic learner in an oracle-only model. The lea...

Mohit Sinha · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

The First-Order Oracle Complexity of Lipschitz Convex Optimization in Nondual Settings

We study first-order black-box convex optimization over an $\ell_p$-ball for objectives Lipschitz in the $\ell_q$-norm, solving in the affirmative the nonsmooth version of the COLT open question (Guz15b) on whether the geometry of a smaller feasible set ($p<q$) can improve convergence rates in convex optimization, and...

David Martínez-Rubio, Brian Bullins, Cristóbal Guzmán et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Sep 2026

Near-Optimal Deterministic Exact-Value Complexity for Smooth Convex Optimization

A single fixed smooth convex hard instance is constructed using a Moreau-smoothed biased max chain, an exact prefix-shielding mechanism, and batched delayed rotations to preserve consistency with the full adaptive transcript and establish the optimality of the square-root complexity branch for deterministic bounded-que...

Wen-Dao Wu, Hai-Han Zhang, Chen-Heng Zhang et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Geometry-Dependent Bounds for Online Non-Monotone DR-Submodular Maximization

We study adversarial online maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular functions over compact convex down-closed sets. A learner commits each action before observing its objective and competes with the best fixed action in hindsight. We prove a comparator-uniform first-order inequality that gives coefficie...

Vaneet Aggarwal · 2 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Efficient Online Inverse Optimization with $O(d)$ Regret

This work builds on the variable-metric framework of Sakaue et al., adding a self-normalized rank-one update, and replaces the $\log\det$ potential by the trace power $\tr(H^{-1/2})$, which is bounded outright and removes the $\ln T$.

Yang Cai, Anupam Gupta, Vineet Gupta et al. · 3 citations · ⚡1

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.