Unverified50% confidenceOpinionExact time
For practical algorithm design, when the dimension d is large and the number of switches k is non-negligible, accepting Õ(dk)-level regret or seeking additional structural assumptions may be a more pragmatic direction than relying on discretization or exact optimization.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/15/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/13/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedMany asymptotically superior algorithms, due to large hidden constant factors or implementation complexity, actually perform worse than highly optimized Dijkstra or A* at real-world data scales.75% similarUnverifiedOccupancy-measure-based algorithms rewrite the policy optimization problem as convex optimization over the occupancy measure polytope, thereby globally controlling error accumulation across all state-action pairs, which is the fundamental reason their regret bound has one fewer H factor.75% similarUnverifiedNaively approximating the infinite-dimensional functional gradient causes the algorithm to converge to the wrong location, introducing systematic bias.74% similarUnverifiedIn a continuous convex action space, discretizing the action space and applying the discrete algorithm can yield Õ(md+k) regret, but the number of grid points required grows exponentially with the dimension d, making the algorithm infeasible in polynomial time.74% similarUnverifiedAlgorithm selection must match the nature of the problem: gradient descent is suited for smooth, differentiable, continuous optimization, while gradient-free methods are suited for discrete, step-wise, or highly noisy objective functions.74% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1032910API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1032910MCP
get_claim(id=1032910)