# 9-slides ```Follow the regularized leader
Sergiy Nesterko, Alice Gao
Outline
• Introduction
o Problem
o Examples of applications
• Online learning algorithms
o Weighted majority
• Online convex optimization
Introduction - problem
• Online decision/prediction
• Each period, need to pick an expert and follow his &quot;advice&quot;
• Incur cost that is associated with the expert we have picked
• The goal is to devise a strategy to incur a total cost not
much larger than the minimum total cost of any expert
Online decision problems
• Shortest paths
• Tree update problem
• Spam prediction
• Potfolio selection
• etc
Why not pick the best performing expert
every time?
• Suppose there are two experts, and cost sequence of (0,1),
(1,0), (0,1), ...
• Picking a leader every time would give the cost of t at time t,
whereas the best expert would have incurred a cost of about
t/2
• Aggravated if there are more experts, prone to adversarial
action
• The main topic of the first paper we are considering today
• Different from the weighted majority by the way randomness
is introduced
• Applies to a broader set of problems (for example, tree
update problem)
• Is arguably more elegant
• However, the idea is the same: give more chance for the
The algorithm, intuitive version
1. At time t, for each expert i, pick p_t[i] ~ Expo(e)
2. Choose expert with minimal c_t[i] - p_t[i]
c_t[i] is the total cost of expert i so far
Example: online shortest path problem
• Choose a path from vertex a to vertex b on a graph that
minimizes travel time
• Every time, have to pick a path from a to b, which is when
we learn how much time is spent on each edge
• Online version: treat all possible paths as experts
Online shortest path algorithm
• Assign travel time 0 to all edges initially
• At every time t and for every edge j, generate an Expo p_t[j],
assign every edge weight of c_t[j] - p_t[j], where c_t[j] is the
total time on edge j so far
• Pick a path with smallest total aggregate travel time
The experts problem - why following the
• Can assume that the only p[i] is generated for every expert
for all periods to build intuition
• if so, expert i is a leader if p[i] &gt; v, for some v, dependent on
all other experts' costs and perturbations
• Expert i stays a winner, if p[i] &gt; v + c[i]
• Then can bound the probability that i stays the leader:
• Similar to the follow-the-perturbed-leader algorithm
function in order to stabilize the decision made, and thus
• Choose a decision vector that will minimize cumulative cost
+ regularization term
• Regret bound: Average regret -&gt; 0 as T -&gt; +infinity
• Main idea for proving regret bound:
o The hypothetical Be-The-Leader algorithm has no
regret. If FTRL chooses the decisions to be close to
BTL, then FTRL would have low regret.
• Tradeoff for choosing a regularizer
o If range of the regularizer is too small, cannot achieve
sufficient stability.
o If range of the regularizer is too large, we are too far
away from choosing the optimal decision.
Weighted majority
• Can be interpreted as a FTRL algorithm with the following
regularizer.
• Update rule:
• Can be interpreted as a FTRL algorithm with the following
regularizer:
• Update rule:
Online convex optimization
• At iteration t, the decision maker chooses x_t in a convex set
K.
• A convex cost function f_t: K -&gt; R is revealed, and the player
incurs the cost f_t(x_t).
• The regret of algorithm A at time T is
o total cost incurred - cost of best single decision
o Goal: Have a regret sublinear in T, i.e. in terms of
average per-period regret, the algorithm performs as well
as the best single decision in hindsight.
• Examples: the experts problem, online shortest paths
Online convex optimization
• The primal-dual approach
The primal-dual approach
• Performing updates and optimization in the dual space
defined by the regularizer
• Project the dual solution y_t into the solution x_t in the
primal space x_t using Bregman divergence
• For linear cost functions, the primal-dual approach is
equivalent to the FTRL algorithm.
Discussion
• Would you be able to think of a way to connect FTRL
algorithms (e.g. weighted majority) to market scoring rules?
• The algorithms strive to achieve single best expert's
performance, what if it is not very good?
• Tradeoff between speed of execution/performance of
experts for a given problem would be interesting to explore
```