Some of the most compelling applications of online convex optimization, including online prediction and classification, are unconstrained: the natural feasible set is R^n. Existing algorithms fail to achieve sub-linear regret in this setting unless constraints on the comparator point x* are known in advance. We present an algorithm that, without such prior knowledge, offers near-optimal regret bounds with respect to any choice of x*. In particular, regret with respect to x* = 0 is constant. We then prove lower bounds showing that our algorithm's guarantees are optimal in this setting up to constant factors.

Which ads should we display in sponsored search in order to maximize our revenue? How should we dynamically rank information sources to maximize value of information? These applications exhibit strong diminishing returns: Selection of redundant ads and information sources decreases their marginal utility. We show that these and other problems can be formalized as repeatedly selecting an assignment of items to positions to maximize a sequence of monotone submodular functions that arrive one by one. We present an efficient algorithm for this general problem and analyze it in the no-regret model. Our algorithm is equipped with strong theoretical guarantees, with a performance ratio that converges to the optimal constant of 1-1/e. We empirically evaluate our algorithms on two real-world online optimization problems on the web: ad allocation with submodular utilities, and dynamically ranking blogs to detect information cascades.

We present an algorithm for solving a broad class of online resource allocation problems. Our online algorithm can be applied in environments where abstract jobs arrive one at a time, and one can complete the jobs by investing time in a number of abstract activities, according to some schedule. We assume that the fraction of jobs completed by a schedule is a monotone, submodular function of a set of pairs (v,t), where t is the time invested in activity v. Under this assumption, our online algorithm performs near-optimally according to two natural metrics: (i) the fraction of jobs completed within time T, for some fixed deadline T > 0, and (ii) the average time required to complete each job. We evaluate our algorithm experimentally by using it to learn, online, a schedule for allocating CPU time among solvers entered in the 2007 SAT solver competition.

We characterize the search landscape of random instances of the job shop scheduling problem (JSP). Specifically, we investigate how the expected values of (1) backbone size, (2) distance between near-optimal schedules, and (3) makespan of random schedules vary as a function of the job to machine ratio (N/M). For the limiting cases N/M approaches 0 and N/M approaches infinity we provide analytical results, while for intermediate values of N/M we perform experiments. We prove that as N/M approaches 0, backbone size approaches 100%, while as N/M approaches infinity the backbone vanishes. In the process we show that as N/M approaches 0 (resp. N/M approaches infinity), simple priority rules almost surely generate an optimal schedule, providing theoretical evidence of an "easy-hard-easy" pattern of typical-case instance difficulty in job shop scheduling. We also draw connections between our theoretical results and the "big valley" picture of JSP landscapes.