Bayesian Bandit Algorithms with Approximate Inference in Stochastic Linear Bandits

Overview

• This paper introduces two Bayesian bandit algorithms, LinTS and LinBUCB, for solving stochastic linear bandits with approximate inference.
• Stochastic linear bandits are a type of multi-armed bandit problem where the reward for each arm (action) is a linear function of the context (features).
• The algorithms use different approaches to balance exploration and exploitation in order to minimize regret, which is the difference between the cumulative reward of the optimal policy and the algorithm's cumulative reward.

Plain English Explanation

In this paper, the researchers present two new algorithms, <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/linbucb">LinTS</a> and <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/linbucb">LinBUCB</a>, for solving a type of machine learning problem called stochastic linear bandits.

Stochastic linear bandits are a bit like a game where you have a bunch of different options (the "arms") and each option has a reward that is a linear function of some features or characteristics. The goal is to figure out which option will give you the highest total reward over time, even though you don't know the exact reward function for each option at the start.

The LinTS and LinBUCB algorithms use different approaches to balance exploring the different options to learn more about them, versus exploiting the options that currently seem most promising. This helps them minimize "regret", which is the difference between the total reward they achieve and the total reward that would have been possible if they had perfect information about the reward functions from the beginning.

Technical Explanation

The paper introduces two Bayesian bandit algorithms, <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/linbucb">LinTS</a> and <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/linbucb">LinBUCB</a>, for solving stochastic linear bandits with approximate inference.

In stochastic linear bandits, the reward for each arm (action) is a linear function of the context (feature vector). The goal is to select arms sequentially to minimize cumulative regret, which is the difference between the cumulative reward of the optimal policy and the algorithm's cumulative reward.

<a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/restless-linear-bandits">LinTS</a> uses Thompson sampling, a Bayesian exploration strategy, to select arms. It maintains a posterior distribution over the unknown linear reward function and samples from this distribution to select the arm with the highest expected reward.

<a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/data-driven-upper-confidence-bounds-near-optimal">LinBUCB</a> uses upper confidence bound (UCB) exploration, maintaining upper confidence bounds on the expected rewards of each arm and selecting the arm with the highest UCB. The UCB is computed using an approximate posterior distribution over the linear reward function.

The authors analyze the regret bounds for both algorithms and show that they achieve near-optimal regret in the stochastic linear bandit setting. They also provide empirical results demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms compared to existing methods.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thorough theoretical analysis of the regret bounds for the proposed LinTS and LinBUCB algorithms. However, the authors acknowledge that the analysis relies on certain assumptions, such as the linear reward function and Gaussian noise, which may not always hold in practice.

Additionally, the paper does not explore the algorithms' performance in more complex or realistic settings, such as <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/optimal-regret-locally-private-linear-contextual-bandit">with local privacy constraints</a> or <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/lc-tsallis-inf-generalized-best-both-worlds">with non-Gaussian noise</a>. Further empirical evaluation in such settings would be helpful to assess the practical applicability of the proposed methods.

Another potential limitation is the reliance on approximate inference techniques, which could introduce additional sources of error. The authors do not provide a detailed analysis of the impact of these approximations on the algorithm's performance.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution by introducing two new Bayesian bandit algorithms, LinTS and LinBUCB, for solving stochastic linear bandits. The theoretical analysis and empirical results demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods in minimizing regret. However, the authors acknowledge several potential limitations and areas for future research, which could help expand the applicability and robustness of these algorithms in real-world scenarios.