Structure-Dependent Regret and Constraint Violation Bounds for Online Convex Optimization with Time-Varying Constraints
Authors: Xiufeng Liu, Qian Chen, Zhijin Wang, Ruyu Liu
Organizations: Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark · Department of Management and Engineering, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden · College of Computer Engineering, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China
Online convex optimization (OCO) with time-varying constraints is a critical framework for sequential decision-making in dynamic networked systems, where learners must minimize cumulative loss while satisfying regions of feasibility that shift across rounds. Existing theoretical analyses typically treat constraint variation as a monolithic adversarial process, resulting in joint regret and violation bounds that are overly conservative for real-world network dynamics. In this paper, we introduce a structured characterization of constraint variation - smooth drift, periodic cycles, and sparse switching - mapping these classes to common network phenomena such as slow channel fading, diurnal traffic patterns, and discrete maintenance windows. We derive structure-dependent joint bounds that strictly improve upon adversarial rates when the constraint process exhibits regularity. To realize these gains, we propose the Structure-Adaptive Primal-Dual (SA-PD) algorithm, which utilizes observable constraint signals to detect environmental structure online and adapt dual update strategies accordingly. Extensive experiments on synthetic benchmarks and real-world datasets - including online electricity scheduling and transformer load management - demonstrate that SA-PD reduces cumulative constraint violation by up to 53% relative to structure-agnostic baselines while maintaining competitive utility. This work serves as a comprehensive guide for exploiting temporal regularity in constrained online learning for robust network engineering.
Figures & tables
Algorithm
Feedback
Constraint Type
Structure Awareness
Violation Bound
Regret Bound
Mahdavi et al. [ 3 ]
Full-Info
Fixed
No
O(T3/4)
O(T)
Yu & Neely [ 8 ]
Stochastic
Fixed
No
O(1)
O(T)
Cao & Liu [ 5 ]
Bandit
Time-varying
No
O(T)
O(T)
Li et al. [ 14 ]
Bandit
Time-varying
No
O(T3/4)
O(T)
Qin et al. [ 15 ]
Full-Info
Nonconvex
No
O(T3/4)
O(T)
Hamoud et al. [ 16 ]
Full-Info
Smooth
Yes ( δc )
0
N/A
TABLE I: Comparison of online convex optimization algorithms with constraints. T denotes the time horizon, and structure parameters δc,P,K are defined in Section IV .
Class
Regret RT
Violation VT
Adversarial
O(T)
O(T3/4)
Smooth S(δc)
O(T+Tδc)
O(Tδc+Tδc)
Periodic P(P)
O(T+TδˉP)
O(PT(PδˉP+PδˉP+log(T/P)))
Sparse K(K)
O(KT+KlogT)
O(KT)
TABLE II: Summary of regret and violation bounds under each constraint variation class. Here δc , P , δˉP , and K are structure parameters defined in Section IV . The adversarial row corresponds to no structural assumption.
Fig. 1: Cumulative constraint violation on synthetic OCO ( T=10,000 , d=10 ) across nine constraint variation configurations. Percentage labels indicate SA-PD’s reduction relative to PD-Fixed. SA-PD achieves 53–69% lower violation across all classes. Note the log scale.
PD-Fixed
VQ-OCO
SA-PD
Smooth ( δc=10−3 )
Loss
7903 ± 12
7278 ± 11
7867 ± 12
Violation
312.9 ± 0.4
1379 ± 1.1
141.5 ± 0.2
Periodic ( P=200 )
Loss
4395 ± 8
4108 ± 8
4583 ± 9
Violation
343.1 ± 0.5
937.0 ± 0.8
105.3 ± 0.2
TABLE III: Cumulative violation and loss on synthetic OCO ( T=10,000 , d=10 , 10 seeds). Best violation per row in bold .
Fig. 2: Violation scaling with horizon T under (a) smooth, (b) periodic, and (c) sparse-switching constraints. Dashed lines show O(T3/4) and O(T1/2) reference rates. SA-PD empirically tracks a rate closer to O(T1/2) on these instances, reflecting the small δc and δˉP values in our experimental configurations (see Remark 2 for the theoretical regime analysis). This plot illustrates instance-dependent scaling and does not contradict the worst-case linear growth permitted by ( 8 ) for fixed P .
Dataset
Method
Violation
Loss
Electricity
PD-Fixed
163.4
7564
VQ-OCO
338.0
7449
SA-PD
77.2
7779
Traffic
PD-Fixed
6.3
3870
VQ-OCO
6.4
3870
SA-PD
6.1
3871
TABLE IV: Results on real-world datasets (10 seeds). Best violation in bold .
Fig. 3: Cumulative violation over time on real datasets. (a) Electricity scheduling with periodic capacity: SA-PD grows 53% slower than PD-Fixed. (b) ETT load management with 8 maintenance windows (dashed vertical lines): SA-PD’s staircase has smaller step heights at each change point.
Fig. 4: Ablation study. Each panel removes one SA-PD mechanism. Under smooth constraints, the adaptive β accounts for the majority of improvement. Under sparse-switching, the change-point reset is the dominant factor.
Université Paris-Saclay, CentraleSupélec, CNRS, L2S, Gif-sur-Yvette, France · Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Télécom SudParis, Palaiseau, France · Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands