Prediction, Learning, and Games¶
Cesa-Bianchi, N., & Lugosi, G. (2006). Prediction, Learning, and Games. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Regret
- It separates two evaluations that everyday language fuses — shortfall against expectation (disappointment) and shortfall against the best available alternative (regret) — and names only the second, a separation that the online-learning literature operationalizes as cumulative regret against the best fixed action in hindsight.
This sourceCanonical treatment of online learning: defines regret as the cumulative gap to the best fixed action in hindsight and establishes no-regret bounds for bandit/sequential-prediction algorithms under adversarial conditions.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The publisher abstract confirms the book's nonstochastic online-learning frame (performance near the best strategy in a reference class) but never states the regret terminology or the cumulative-regret definition.
“Yet, prediction algorithms can be constructed that work well for all possible sequences, in the sense that their performance is always nearly as good as the best forecasting strategy in a given reference class.”
- It separates two evaluations that everyday language fuses — shortfall against expectation (disappointment) and shortfall against the best available alternative (regret) — and names only the second, a separation that the online-learning literature operationalizes as cumulative regret against the best fixed action in hindsight.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c752e483e225 · see in the full table