mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Stability-penalty-adaptive follow-the-regularized-leader: Sparsity, game-dependency, and best-of-both-worlds

arXiv 2305.17301 ↗First posted 26 May 2023cs.LG stat.MLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Adaptivity to the difficulties of a problem is a key property in sequential decision-making problems to broaden the applicability of algorithms. Follow-the-regularized-leader (FTRL) has recently emerged as one of the most promising approaches for obtaining various types of adaptivity in bandit problems. Aiming to further generalize this adaptivity, we develop a generic adaptive learning rate, called stability-penalty-adaptive (SPA) learning rate for FTRL. This learning rate yields a regret bound jointly depending on stability and penalty of the algorithm, into which the regret of FTRL is typically decomposed. With this result, we establish several algorithms with three types of adaptivity: sparsity, game-dependency, and best-of-both-worlds (BOBW). Despite the fact that sparsity appears frequently in real problems, existing sparse multi-armed bandit algorithms with k-arms assume that the sparsity level s ≤ k is known in advance, which is often not the case in real-world scenarios. To address this issue, we first establish s-agnostic algorithms with regret bounds of tildeO(√sT) in the adversarial regime for T rounds, which matches the existing lower bound up to a logarithmic factor. Meanwhile, BOBW algorithms aim to achieve a near-optimal regret in both the stochastic and adversarial regimes. Leveraging the SPA learning rate and the technique for s-agnostic algorithms combined with a new analysis to bound the variation in FTRL output in response to changes in a regularizer, we establish the first BOBW algorithm with a sparsity-dependent bound. Additionally, we explore partial monitoring and demonstrate that the proposed SPA learning rate framework allows us to achieve a game-dependent bound and the BOBW simultaneously.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2023.

Builds on

26 of 55 references.

References · 26

  1. 2019Online Learning: A Modern Introduction Using Convex Optimizationcited by 407
  2. 2018Tsallis-INF: An Optimal Algorithm for Stochastic and Adversarial Banditscited by 123
  3. 2018Stochastic bandits robust to adversarial corruptionscited by 118
  4. 2018More Adaptive Algorithms for Adversarial Banditscited by 114
  5. 2014A Second-order Bound with Excess Lossescited by 91
  6. 2015Online Learning with Feedback Graphs: Beyond Banditscited by 79
  7. 2015Fighting Bandits with a New Kind of Smoothnesscited by 45
  8. 2017An Improved Parametrization and Analysis of the EXP3++ Algorithm for Stochastic and Adversarial Banditscited by 43
  9. 2021The best of both worlds: stochastic and adversarial episodic MDPs with unknown transitioncited by 40
  10. 2017Tracking the Best Expert in Non-stationary Stochastic Environmentscited by 35
  11. 2023A Blackbox Approach to Best of Both Worlds in Bandits and Beyondcited by 29
  12. 2022Nearly Optimal Best-of-Both-Worlds Algorithms for Online Learning with Feedback Graphscited by 26
14 more
  1. 2017Sparsity, variance and curvature in multi-armed banditscited by 24
  2. 2019Improved Path-length Regret Bounds for Banditscited by 22
  3. 2020A Closer Look at Small-loss Bounds for Bandits with Graph Feedbackcited by 21
  4. 2018Efficient Online Portfolio with Logarithmic Regretcited by 20
  5. 2019Exploration by Optimisation in Partial Monitoringcited by 20
  6. 2022Best-of-Both-Worlds Algorithms for Partial Monitoringcited by 19
  7. 2023Improved Best-of-Both-Worlds Guarantees for Multi-Armed Bandits: FTRL with General Regularizers and Multiple Optimal Armscited by 18
  8. 2018Cleaning up the neighborhood: A full classification for adversarial partial monitoringcited by 16
  9. 2022Adversarially Robust Multi-Armed Bandit Algorithm with Variance-Dependent Regret Boundscited by 12
  10. 2015Regret Lower Bound and Optimal Algorithm in Finite Stochastic Partial Monitoringcited by 10
  11. 2015Gains and Losses are Fundamentally Different in Regret Minimization: The Sparse Casecited by 9
  12. 2019Equipping Experts/Bandits with Long-term Memorycited by 9
  13. 2020Analysis and Design of Thompson Sampling for Stochastic Partial Monitoringcited by 9
  14. 2017Sparse Stochastic Banditscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 5; 2026: 4.

15 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2024Adaptive Learning Rate for Follow-the-Regularized-Leader: Competitive Analysis and Best-of-Both-Worldscited by 11
  2. 2023Best-of-Both-Worlds Algorithms for Linear Contextual Banditscited by 10
  3. 2024LC-Tsallis-INF: Generalized Best-of-Both-Worlds Linear Contextual Banditscited by 4
  4. 2026Sublogarithmic Swap Regret in Multiplayer General-Sum Games via Hybrid Regularizationcited by 4
  5. 2026Muon with Finite Newton-Schulz: The Smoothing Benefit in Nonsmooth Nonconvex Optimizationcited by 4
  6. 2024Exploration by Optimization with Hybrid Regularizers: Logarithmic Regret with Adversarial Robustness in Partial Monitoringcited by 3
  7. 2024A Simple and Adaptive Learning Rate for FTRL in Online Learning with Minimax Regret of Theta(T2/3) and its Application to Best-of-Both-Worldscited by 3
  8. 2023Best-of-Both-Worlds Linear Contextual Banditscited by 2
  9. 2025Adapting to Stochastic and Adversarial Losses in Episodic MDPs with Aggregate Bandit Feedbackcited by 2
  10. 2025Follow-the-Perturbed-Leader for Decoupled Bandits: Best-of-Both-Worlds and Practicalitycited by 1
  11. 2025Instance-Dependent Regret Bounds for Nonstochastic Linear Partial Monitoringcited by 1
  12. 2025Stochastic Shortest Path with Sparse Adversarial Costscited by 1
3 more
  1. 2025A Near-optimal, Scalable and Parallelizable Framework for Stochastic Bandits Robust to Adversarial Corruptions and Beyondcited by 0
  2. 2026From Average Sensitivity to Small-Loss Regret Bounds under Random-Order Modelcited by 0
  3. 2026Adaptive Learning Rates with Surrogate Probability for Follow-the-Perturbed-Leadercited by 0