Paper detail

Online Learning with Simple Predictors and a Combinatorial Characterization of Minimax in 0/1 Games

Which classes can be learned properly in the online model? -- that is, by an algorithm that at each round uses a predictor from the concept class. While there are simple and natural cases where improper learning is necessary, it is natural to ask how complex must the improper predictors be in such cases. Can one always achieve nearly optimal mistake/regret bounds using "simple" predictors? In this work, we give a complete characterization of when this is possible, thus settling an open problem which has been studied since the pioneering works of Angluin (1987) and Littlestone (1988). More precisely, given any concept class C and any hypothesis class H, we provide nearly tight bounds (up to a log factor) on the optimal mistake bounds for online learning C using predictors from H. Our bound yields an exponential improvement over the previously best known bound by Chase and Freitag (2020). As applications, we give constructive proofs showing that (i) in the realizable setting, a near-optimal mistake bound (up to a constant factor) can be attained by a sparse majority-vote of proper predictors, and (ii) in the agnostic setting, a near-optimal regret bound (up to a log factor) can be attained by a randomized proper algorithm. A technical ingredient of our proof which may be of independent interest is a generalization of the celebrated Minimax Theorem (von Neumann, 1928) for binary zero-sum games. A simple game which fails to satisfy Minimax is "Guess the Larger Number", where each player picks a number and the larger number wins. The payoff matrix is infinite triangular. We show this is the only obstruction: if a game does not contain triangular submatrices of unbounded sizes then the Minimax Theorem holds. This generalizes von Neumann's Minimax Theorem by removing requirements of finiteness (or compactness), and captures precisely the games of interest in online learning.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.