Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Revisiting Projection-Free Online Learning with Time-Varying Constraints

Yibo Wang, Yuanyu Wan, Lijun Zhang

TL;DR

This work addresses projection-free constrained online convex optimization with time-varying constraints by constructing a Lyapunov-based composite surrogate loss and applying a parameter-free online Frank-Wolfe (OFW) extension. It delivers improved regret and cumulative constraint violation bounds for both general convex and strongly convex losses, and extends the framework to bandit feedback using one-point gradient estimators with comparable rates. The proposed OFW-TVC and SCOFW-TVC algorithms, together with their bandit counterparts, achieve $\mathrm{Regret}_T=\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4})$ and $Q_T=\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4}\log T)$ in the general convex full-information setting, and $\mathrm{Regret}_T=\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3})$ and $Q_T=\mathcal{O}(T^{5/6})$ in the strongly convex regime, with corresponding bandit results including $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4})$ and $\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3}\log T)$ terms. Experiments on real datasets like MovieLens and FilmTrust validate the theoretical gains, demonstrating the practicality of projection-free COCO under time-varying constraints. The work advances projection-free online learning by eliminating projection costs while rigorously balancing regret and long-term constraint satisfaction.

Abstract

We investigate constrained online convex optimization, in which decisions must belong to a fixed and typically complicated domain, and are required to approximately satisfy additional time-varying constraints over the long term. In this setting, the commonly used projection operations are often computationally expensive or even intractable. To avoid the time-consuming operation, several projection-free methods have been proposed with an $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4} \sqrt{\log T})$ regret bound and an $\mathcal{O}(T^{7/8})$ cumulative constraint violation (CCV) bound for general convex losses. In this paper, we improve this result and further establish \textit{novel} regret and CCV bounds when loss functions are strongly convex. The primary idea is to first construct a composite surrogate loss, involving the original loss and constraint functions, by utilizing the Lyapunov-based technique. Then, we propose a parameter-free variant of the classical projection-free method, namely online Frank-Wolfe (OFW), and run this new extension over the online-generated surrogate loss. Theoretically, for general convex losses, we achieve an $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4})$ regret bound and an $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4} \log T)$ CCV bound, both of which are order-wise tighter than existing results. For strongly convex losses, we establish new guarantees of an $\mathcal{O}(T^{2/3})$ regret bound and an $\mathcal{O}(T^{5/6})$ CCV bound. Moreover, we also extend our methods to a more challenging setting with bandit feedback, obtaining similar theoretical findings. Empirically, experiments on real-world datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of our methods.

Revisiting Projection-Free Online Learning with Time-Varying Constraints

TL;DR

This work addresses projection-free constrained online convex optimization with time-varying constraints by constructing a Lyapunov-based composite surrogate loss and applying a parameter-free online Frank-Wolfe (OFW) extension. It delivers improved regret and cumulative constraint violation bounds for both general convex and strongly convex losses, and extends the framework to bandit feedback using one-point gradient estimators with comparable rates. The proposed OFW-TVC and SCOFW-TVC algorithms, together with their bandit counterparts, achieve and in the general convex full-information setting, and and in the strongly convex regime, with corresponding bandit results including and terms. Experiments on real datasets like MovieLens and FilmTrust validate the theoretical gains, demonstrating the practicality of projection-free COCO under time-varying constraints. The work advances projection-free online learning by eliminating projection costs while rigorously balancing regret and long-term constraint satisfaction.

Abstract

We investigate constrained online convex optimization, in which decisions must belong to a fixed and typically complicated domain, and are required to approximately satisfy additional time-varying constraints over the long term. In this setting, the commonly used projection operations are often computationally expensive or even intractable. To avoid the time-consuming operation, several projection-free methods have been proposed with an regret bound and an cumulative constraint violation (CCV) bound for general convex losses. In this paper, we improve this result and further establish \textit{novel} regret and CCV bounds when loss functions are strongly convex. The primary idea is to first construct a composite surrogate loss, involving the original loss and constraint functions, by utilizing the Lyapunov-based technique. Then, we propose a parameter-free variant of the classical projection-free method, namely online Frank-Wolfe (OFW), and run this new extension over the online-generated surrogate loss. Theoretically, for general convex losses, we achieve an regret bound and an CCV bound, both of which are order-wise tighter than existing results. For strongly convex losses, we establish new guarantees of an regret bound and an CCV bound. Moreover, we also extend our methods to a more challenging setting with bandit feedback, obtaining similar theoretical findings. Empirically, experiments on real-world datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of our methods.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 29 sections, 14 theorems, 105 equations, 2 figures, 1 table, 4 algorithms.

Key Result

Lemma 1

Let $f(\mathbf{x})$ be an $\alpha_f$-strongly convex function over $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathbf{x}^* = \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}\limits_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{K}}f(\mathbf{x})$. Then, for any $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{K}$

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Experimental results on the MovieLens dataset.
  • Figure 2: Experimental results on the Film Trust dataset.

Theorems & Definitions (16)

  • Definition 1
  • Definition 2
  • Lemma 1
  • Theorem 1
  • Theorem 2
  • Lemma 2
  • Theorem 3
  • Theorem 4
  • Lemma 3
  • Lemma 4
  • ...and 6 more