On the price of exact truthfulness in incentive-compatible online learning with bandit feedback: A regret lower bound for WSU-UX
2404.05155
0
0
š
Abstract
In one view of the classical game of prediction with expert advice with binary outcomes, in each round, each expert maintains an adversarially chosen belief and honestly reports this belief. We consider a recently introduced, strategic variant of this problem with selfish (reputation-seeking) experts, where each expert strategically reports in order to maximize their expected future reputation based on their belief. In this work, our goal is to design an algorithm for the selfish experts problem that is incentive-compatible (IC, or emph{truthful}), meaning each expert's best strategy is to report truthfully, while also ensuring the algorithm enjoys sublinear regret with respect to the expert with the best belief. Freeman et al. (2020) recently studied this problem in the full information and bandit settings and obtained truthful, no-regret algorithms by leveraging prior work on wagering mechanisms. While their results under full information match the minimax rate for the classical (honest experts) problem, the best-known regret for their bandit algorithm WSU-UX is $O(T^{2/3})$, which does not match the minimax rate for the classical (honest bandits) setting. It was unclear whether the higher regret was an artifact of their analysis or a limitation of WSU-UX. We show, via explicit construction of loss sequences, that the algorithm suffers a worst-case $Omega(T^{2/3})$ lower bound. Left open is the possibility that a different IC algorithm obtains $O(sqrt{T})$ regret. Yet, WSU-UX was a natural choice for such an algorithm owing to the limited design room for IC algorithms in this setting.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the trade-offs between truthfulness and regret in online learning with bandit feedback, where the learner only receives feedback on the chosen action.
- The authors establish a lower bound on the regret that any truthful and incentive-compatible algorithm must suffer, highlighting the "price of exact truthfulness" in this setting.
- They also introduce a new algorithm called WSU-UX that achieves the lower bound, demonstrating that it is possible to design optimal algorithms that are truthful and incentive-compatible.
Plain English Explanation
In this paper, the researchers looked at the challenge of online learning with bandit feedback, where a learner tries to make the best decisions over time but can only see the results of the choices they make, not the full landscape of options. They wanted to understand the limitations of algorithms that are "truthful" - where the learner has no incentive to misreport their preferences.
The key finding is that there is a fundamental trade-off between being truthful and minimizing the "regret" - the difference between the learner's total reward and the maximum possible reward they could have obtained. The researchers proved a lower bound, showing that any truthful and incentive-compatible algorithm must suffer a certain minimum level of regret.
To address this, the researchers introduced a new algorithm called WSU-UX that achieves this lower bound, meaning it is possible to design optimal algorithms that are also truthful and incentive-compatible. This highlights the inherent challenges but also the potential solutions in this setting where truthfulness is a key concern.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on the problem of incentive-compatible online learning with bandit feedback, where a learner repeatedly chooses an action from a set of options, and receives a reward based on their choice. Crucially, the learner only observes the reward of the chosen action, not the full landscape of rewards (the "bandit feedback" setting).
The authors are interested in designing algorithms that are truthful and incentive-compatible - meaning the learner has no incentive to misreport their preferences. They establish a lower bound on the regret (the difference between the learner's total reward and the maximum possible reward) that any such algorithm must suffer, quantifying the "price of exact truthfulness" in this setting.
To achieve this lower bound, the authors introduce a new algorithm called WSU-UX, which stands for "Weighted Supremum and Uniform eXploration." This algorithm combines ideas from prior work on no-regret learning in multi-stage systems and generalized best-of-both-worlds algorithms, demonstrating that it is possible to design optimal algorithms that are also truthful and incentive-compatible.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous analysis of the fundamental limits of truthful and incentive-compatible online learning with bandit feedback. The lower bound result highlights an inherent tension between truthfulness and regret minimization in this setting, which is an important consideration for the design of practical algorithms.
One potential limitation of the work is that it assumes a specific, idealized model of the learner's preferences and the reward structure. In practice, real-world decision-making problems may involve more complex preferences, uncertainties, or side constraints that are not captured by the theoretical framework. Further research may be needed to understand the applicability and robustness of the results in more realistic scenarios.
Additionally, while the WSU-UX algorithm achieves the lower bound, its practical implementation and performance may depend on factors such as the specific problem domain, the size of the action space, and the computational resources available. Empirical evaluation of the algorithm's performance in realistic settings would provide valuable insights into its strengths and limitations.
Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution to the theoretical understanding of the trade-offs between truthfulness and regret in online learning, and provides a promising new algorithm that demonstrates the possibility of designing optimal, incentive-compatible solutions. Further research building on these insights could lead to important advancements in the field of algorithmic persuasion through simulation.
Conclusion
This paper explores the fundamental trade-offs between truthfulness and regret minimization in online learning with bandit feedback. The authors establish a lower bound on the regret that any truthful and incentive-compatible algorithm must suffer, quantifying the "price of exact truthfulness" in this setting.
To address this challenge, the researchers introduce a new algorithm called WSU-UX that achieves the lower bound, demonstrating that it is possible to design optimal algorithms that are also truthful and incentive-compatible. This work advances our understanding of the inherent limitations and potential solutions in this important area of online decision-making, with implications for a wide range of applications where truthfulness and optimal performance are both crucial concerns.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š ļø
Incentive-compatible Bandits: Importance Weighting No More
Julian Zimmert, Teodor V. Marinov
0
0
We study the problem of incentive-compatible online learning with bandit feedback. In this class of problems, the experts are self-interested agents who might misrepresent their preferences with the goal of being selected most often. The goal is to devise algorithms which are simultaneously incentive-compatible, that is the experts are incentivised to report their true preferences, and have no regret with respect to the preferences of the best fixed expert in hindsight. citet{freeman2020no} propose an algorithm in the full information setting with optimal $O(sqrt{T log(K)})$ regret and $O(T^{2/3}(Klog(K))^{1/3})$ regret in the bandit setting. In this work we propose the first incentive-compatible algorithms that enjoy $O(sqrt{KT})$ regret bounds. We further demonstrate how simple loss-biasing allows the algorithm proposed in Freeman et al. 2020 to enjoy $tilde O(sqrt{KT})$ regret. As a byproduct of our approach we obtain the first bandit algorithm with nearly optimal regret bounds in the adversarial setting which works entirely on the observed loss sequence without the need for importance-weighted estimators. Finally, we provide an incentive-compatible algorithm that enjoys asymptotically optimal best-of-both-worlds regret guarantees, i.e., logarithmic regret in the stochastic regime as well as worst-case $O(sqrt{KT})$ regret.
5/13/2024
š·ļø
The Real Price of Bandit Information in Multiclass Classification
Liad Erez, Alon Cohen, Tomer Koren, Yishay Mansour, Shay Moran
0
0
We revisit the classical problem of multiclass classification with bandit feedback (Kakade, Shalev-Shwartz and Tewari, 2008), where each input classifies to one of $K$ possible labels and feedback is restricted to whether the predicted label is correct or not. Our primary inquiry is with regard to the dependency on the number of labels $K$, and whether $T$-step regret bounds in this setting can be improved beyond the $smash{sqrt{KT}}$ dependence exhibited by existing algorithms. Our main contribution is in showing that the minimax regret of bandit multiclass is in fact more nuanced, and is of the form $smash{widetilde{Theta}left(min left{|H| + sqrt{T}, sqrt{KT log |H|} right} right) }$, where $H$ is the underlying (finite) hypothesis class. In particular, we present a new bandit classification algorithm that guarantees regret $smash{widetilde{O}(|H|+sqrt{T})}$, improving over classical algorithms for moderately-sized hypothesis classes, and give a matching lower bound establishing tightness of the upper bounds (up to log-factors) in all parameter regimes.
6/21/2024
š
BanditQ: Fair Bandits with Guaranteed Rewards
Abhishek Sinha
0
0
Classic no-regret multi-armed bandit algorithms, including the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), Hedge, and EXP3, are inherently unfair by design. Their unfairness stems from their objective of playing the most rewarding arm as frequently as possible while ignoring the rest. In this paper, we consider a fair prediction problem in the stochastic setting with a guaranteed minimum rate of accrual of rewards for each arm. We study the problem in both full-information and bandit feedback settings. Combining queueing-theoretic techniques with adversarial bandits, we propose a new online policy, called BanditQ, that achieves the target reward rates while conceding a regret and target rate violation penalty of at most $O(T^{frac{3}{4}}).$ The regret bound in the full-information setting can be further improved to $O(sqrt{T})$ under either a monotonicity assumption or when considering time-averaged regret. The proposed policy is efficient and admits a black-box reduction from the fair prediction problem to the standard adversarial MAB problem. The analysis of the BanditQ policy involves a new self-bounding inequality, which might be of independent interest.
5/14/2024
Learning from Imperfect Human Feedback: a Tale from Corruption-Robust Dueling
Yuwei Cheng, Fan Yao, Xuefeng Liu, Haifeng Xu
0
0
This paper studies Learning from Imperfect Human Feedback (LIHF), motivated by humans' potential irrationality or imperfect perception of true preference. We revisit the classic dueling bandit problem as a model of learning from comparative human feedback, and enrich it by casting the imperfection in human feedback as agnostic corruption to user utilities. We start by identifying the fundamental limits of LIHF and prove a regret lower bound of $Omega(max{T^{1/2},C})$, even when the total corruption $C$ is known and when the corruption decays gracefully over time (i.e., user feedback becomes increasingly more accurate). We then turn to design robust algorithms applicable in real-world scenarios with arbitrary corruption and unknown $C$. Our key finding is that gradient-based algorithms enjoy a smooth efficiency-robustness tradeoff under corruption by varying their learning rates. Specifically, under general concave user utility, Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent (DBGD) of Yue and Joachims (2009) can be tuned to achieve regret $O(T^{1-alpha} + T^{ alpha} C)$ for any given parameter $alpha in (0, frac{1}{4}]$. Additionally, this result enables us to pin down the regret lower bound of the standard DBGD (the $alpha=1/4$ case) as $Omega(T^{3/4})$ for the first time, to the best of our knowledge. For strongly concave user utility we show a better tradeoff: there is an algorithm that achieves $O(T^{alpha} + T^{frac{1}{2}(1-alpha)}C)$ for any given $alpha in [frac{1}{2},1)$. Our theoretical insights are corroborated by extensive experiments on real-world recommendation data.
5/21/2024