Variance-Aware Sparse Linear BanditsDownload PDF

Published: 01 Feb 2023, 19:20, Last Modified: 13 Feb 2023, 23:28ICLR 2023 posterReaders: Everyone
Abstract: It is well-known that for sparse linear bandits, when ignoring the dependency on sparsity which is much smaller than the ambient dimension, the worst-case minimax regret is $\widetilde{\Theta}\left(\sqrt{dT}\right)$ where $d$ is the ambient dimension and $T$ is the number of rounds. On the other hand, in the benign setting where there is no noise and the action set is the unit sphere, one can use divide-and-conquer to achieve $\widetilde{\mathcal O}(1)$ regret, which is (nearly) independent of $d$ and $T$. In this paper, we present the first variance-aware regret guarantee for sparse linear bandits: $\widetilde{\mathcal O}\left(\sqrt{d\sum_{t=1}^T \sigma_t^2} + 1\right)$, where $\sigma_t^2$ is the variance of the noise at the $t$-th round. This bound naturally interpolates the regret bounds for the worst-case constant-variance regime (i.e., $\sigma_t \equiv \Omega(1)$) and the benign deterministic regimes (i.e., $\sigma_t \equiv 0$). To achieve this variance-aware regret guarantee, we develop a general framework that converts any variance-aware linear bandit algorithm to a variance-aware algorithm for sparse linear bandits in a "black-box" manner. Specifically, we take two recent algorithms as black boxes to illustrate that the claimed bounds indeed hold, where the first algorithm can handle unknown-variance cases and the second one is more efficient.
Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics
Submission Guidelines: Yes
Please Choose The Closest Area That Your Submission Falls Into: Theory (eg, control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)
10 Replies