4.7 Article

Online Learning Over Dynamic Graphs via Distributed Proximal Gradient Algorithm

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL
卷 66, 期 11, 页码 5065-5079

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2020.3033712

关键词

Heuristic algorithms; Signal processing algorithms; Convex functions; Distributed algorithms; Network topology; Optimization; Robot sensing systems; Distributed optimization; dynamic regret; online convex optimization; sparse signal recovery

资金

  1. DST-SERB [EMR/2016/005959]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper addresses the problem of tracking the minimum of a time-varying convex optimization problem over a dynamic graph, and proposes a distributed algorithm capable of handling nondifferentiable regularization penalties. Through analysis and testing, the algorithm shows good performance on the problem of distributed dynamic sparse recovery.
We consider the problem of tracking the minimum of a time-varying convex optimization problem over a dynamic graph. Motivated by target tracking and parameter estimation problems in intermittently connected robotic and sensor networks, the goal is to design a distributed algorithm capable of handling nondifferentiable regularization penalties. The proposed proximal online gradient descent algorithm is built to run in a fully decentralized manner and utilizes consensus updates over possibly disconnected graphs. The performance of the proposed algorithm is analyzed by developing bounds on its dynamic regret in terms of the cumulative path length of the timevarying optimum. It is shown that as compared to the centralized case, the dynamic regret incurred by the proposed algorithm over T time slots is worse by a factor of log(T) only, despite the disconnected and time-varying network topology. The empirical performance of the proposed algorithm is tested on the distributed dynamic sparse recovery problem, where it is shown to incur a dynamic regret that is close to that of the centralized algorithm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据