In the Convex Body Chasing problem, we are given an initial point @math in @math and an online sequence of @math convex bodies @math . When we receive @math , we are required to move inside @math . Our goal is to minimize the total distance travelled. This fundamental online problem was first studied by Friedman and Linial (DCG 1993). They proved an @math lower bound on the competitive ratio, and conjectured that a competitive ratio depending only on d is possible. However, despite much interest in the problem, the conjecture remains wide open. We consider the setting in which the convex bodies are nested: @math . The nested setting is closely related to extending the online LP framework of Buchbinder and Naor (ESA 2005) to arbitrary linear constraints. Moreover, this setting retains much of the difficulty of the general setting and captures an essential obstacle in resolving Friedman and Linial's conjecture. In this work, we give the first @math -competitive algorithm for chasing nested convex bodies in @math .
Another motivation for studying the nested case is that it captures much of the inherent hardness of the general convex body chasing problem. For example, the @math lower bound @cite_9 for the general problem also holds in the nested setting. Moreover, several natural algorithms also fail for the nested case.
@cite_9
2345314460 2055400003 2769394111 2520966671
We consider three related online problems: Online Convex Optimization, Convex Body Chasing, and Lazy Convex Body Chasing. In Online Convex Optimization the input is an online sequence of convex functions over some Euclidean space. In response to a function, the online algorithm can move to any destination point in the Euclidean space. The cost is the total distance moved plus the sum of the function costs at the destination points. Lazy Convex Body Chasing is a special case of Online Convex Optimization where the function is zero in some convex region, and grows linearly with the distance from this region. And Convex Body Chasing is a special case of Lazy Convex Body Chasing where the destination point has to be in the convex region. We show that these problems are equivalent in the sense that if any of these problems have an O(1)-competitive algorithm then all of the problems have an O(1)-competitive algorithm. By leveraging these results we then obtain the first O(1)-competitive algorithm for Online Convex Optimization in two dimensions, and give the first O(1)-competitive algorithm for chasing linear subspaces. We also give a simple algorithm and O(1)-competitiveness analysis for chasing lines. In this paper we first study a smooth optimization approach for solving a class of nonsmooth strictly concave maximization problems whose objective functions admit smooth convex minimization reformulations. In particular, we apply Nesterov's smooth optimization technique [Y. E. Nesterov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 269 (1983), pp. 543-547; Y. E. Nesterov, Math. Programming, 103 (2005), pp. 127-152] to their dual counterparts that are smooth convex problems. It is shown that the resulting approach has @math iteration complexity for finding an @math -optimal solution to both primal and dual problems. We then discuss the application of this approach to sparse covariance selection that is approximately solved as an @math -norm penalized maximum likelihood estimation problem, and also propose a variant of this approach which has substantially outperformed the latter one in our computational experiments. We finally compare the performance of these approaches with other first-order methods, namely, Nesterov's @math smooth approximation scheme and block-coordinate descent method studied in [A. d'Aspremont, O. Banerjee, and L. El Ghaoui, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 30 (2008), pp. 56-66; J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, Biostatistics, 9 (2008), pp. 432-441] for sparse covariance selection on a set of randomly generated instances. It shows that our smooth optimization approach substantially outperforms the first method above, and moreover, its variant substantially outperforms both methods above. Nesterov's accelerated gradient descent (AGD), an instance of the general family of "momentum methods", provably achieves faster convergence rate than gradient descent (GD) in the convex setting. However, whether these methods are superior to GD in the nonconvex setting remains open. This paper studies a simple variant of AGD, and shows that it escapes saddle points and finds a second-order stationary point in @math iterations, faster than the @math iterations required by GD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Hessian-free algorithm to find a second-order stationary point faster than GD, and also the first single-loop algorithm with a faster rate than GD even in the setting of finding a first-order stationary point. Our analysis is based on two key ideas: (1) the use of a simple Hamiltonian function, inspired by a continuous-time perspective, which AGD monotonically decreases per step even for nonconvex functions, and (2) a novel framework called improve or localize, which is useful for tracking the long-term behavior of gradient-based optimization algorithms. We believe that these techniques may deepen our understanding of both acceleration algorithms and nonconvex optimization. We develop a novel framework to study smooth and strongly convex optimization algorithms. Focusing on quadratic functions we are able to examine optimization algorithms as a recursive application of linear operators. This, in turn, reveals a powerful connection between a class of optimization algorithms and the analytic theory of polynomials whereby new lower and upper bounds are derived. Whereas existing lower bounds for this setting are only valid when the dimensionality scales with the number of iterations, our lower bound holds in the natural regime where the dimensionality is fixed. Lastly, expressing it as an optimal solution for the corresponding optimization problem over polynomials, as formulated by our framework, we present a novel systematic derivation of Nesterov's well-known Accelerated Gradient Descent method. This rather natural interpretation of AGD contrasts with earlier ones which lacked a simple, yet solid, motivation.