Bias no more: high-probability data-dependent regret bounds for adversarial bandits and MDPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a new approach to obtaining high probability regret bounds for online learning with bandit feedback against an adaptive adversary. While existing approaches all require carefully constructing optimistic and biased loss estimators, our approach uses standard unbiased estimators and relies on a simple increasing learning rate schedule, together with the help of logarithmically homogeneous self-concordant barriers and a strengthened Freedman's inequality. Besides its simplicity, our approach enjoys several advantages. First, the obtained high-probability regret bounds are data-dependent and could be much smaller than the worst-case bounds, which resolves an open problem asked by Neu (2015). Second, resolving another open problem of Bartlett et al. (2008) and Abernethy and Rakhlin (2009), our approach leads to the first general and efficient algorithm with a high-probability regret bound for adversarial linear bandits, while previous methods are either inefficient or only applicable to specific action sets. Finally, our approach can also be applied to learning adversarial Markov Decision Processes and provides the first algorithm with a high-probability small-loss bound for this problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".