Combinatorial Bandits

Linear bandits whose actions are binary vectors in {0,1}ᵈ with at most m ones — paths, m-subsets, one choice per task. Losses lie in [0,1]ᵈ and actions are compared to the best fixed action in hindsight. Applications covered are online shortest paths, ranking/selection, and multi-task bandits. With bandit feedback, linear Exp3 gives m^{3/2}√(12dn log(ed/m)), which is tight in m but computationally hopeless in general (repeated TSP is hard to approximate). With semi-bandit feedback (each chosen coordinate's loss is seen), mirror descent with negentropy on co(A) gives √(2nmd(1+log(d/m))), but it needs a convex projection and a decomposition into a distribution over A. Follow-the-perturbed-leader needs only a linear-optimisation oracle; it is mirror descent with the potential whose dual is a smoothed support function, uses geometric resampling to estimate inverse probabilities, and achieves m√(2(1+e²)nd(1+log d)) with Laplace perturbations. Notes cover lower bounds (m^{3/2} for bandits, √(mdn) for semi-bandits), √m improvements for m-sets, oracle complexity, efficient m-set and shortest-path implementations, and stochastic combinatorial models.

· 18 min read · 3,431 words

Corresponds to Lattimore & Szepesvári, Chapter 30.

Motivation: huge action sets with cheap offline optimisation

DefinitionCombinatorial bandit

A linear bandit with A⊆{0,1}d\mathcal A\subseteq\{0,1\}^d: each action switches some of dd components “on”, subject to combinatorial constraints. In the adversarial model, the adversary fixes losses y1,…,yny_1, \ldots, y_n and

Rn=max⁡a∈AE[∑t=1n⟨At−a,yt⟩]R_n = \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\mathbb E\Big[\sum_{t=1}^n\langle A_t - a,y_t\rangle\Big]

Stochastic variants are discussed under Stochastic combinatorial bandits.

IntuitionStatistics is easy; computation is the problem

Chapters 27–28 (adversarial-linear-bandits) already give regret bounds. The difficulty is that ∣A∣\lvert\mathcal A\rvert is typically exponential in dd. The hope is to rely on an efficient optimisation oracle y↦arg⁡min⁡a∈A⟨a,y⟩y\mapsto\arg\min_{a\in\mathcal A}\langle a,y\rangle (shortest path, top-mm selection, matching). If even the offline problem is hard, no efficient low-regret algorithm can exist.

DefinitionFeedback models

FeedbackLearner observesExample (route Budapest→Frankfurt→Singapore→Sydney)
Bandit⟨At,yt⟩\langle A_t,y_t\rangle onlytotal travel time: 21 hours
Semi-bandit(At1yt1,…,Atdytd)(A_{t1}y_{t1}, \ldots, A_{td}y_{td}), the loss of each “on” coordinateeach flight: 1h, 12h, 8h
Full informationthe whole yty_tevery flight’s duration

ConventionNotation and assumptions

  • A⊆{a∈{0,1}d:∥a∥1≤m}\mathcal A\subseteq\{a\in\{0,1\}^d : \lVert a\rVert_1\le m\}: at most mm components on at once.
  • yt∈[0,1]dy_t\in[0,1]^d. Unlike Chapters 27–28’s polar-set assumption, this lets ∣⟨At,yt⟩∣\lvert\langle A_t,y_t\rangle\rvert be as large as mm.
SettingAlgorithmRegretComputation
BanditLinear Exp3 + Kiefer–Wolfowitzm3/212dnlog⁡(ed/m)m^{3/2}\sqrt{12dn\log(ed/m)}generally intractable
Semi-banditMirror descent, negentropy, on co(A)\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A)2nmd(1+log⁡(d/m))\sqrt{2nmd(1 + \log(d/m))}projection + decomposition: case by case
Semi-banditFTPL + geometric resamplingm2(1+e2)nd(1+log⁡d)m\sqrt{2(1 + e^2)nd(1 + \log d)}one oracle call per round (+ resampling)
Lower bounds—bandit Ω(m3/2dn)\Omega(m^{3/2}\sqrt{dn}); semi-bandit Ω(mdn)\Omega(\sqrt{mdn})—

Applications

ExampleOnline shortest paths

A graph G=(V,E)G = (V,E) with ∣E∣=d\lvert E\rvert = d and fixed endpoints u,vu, v. The adversary sets edge lengths yt∈[0,1]dy_t\in[0,1]^d each round. The learner picks a uu–vv path a∈{0,1}da\in\{0,1\}^d (its edge-incidence vector), with length ⟨a,yt⟩\langle a,y_t\rangle. Here mm is the length of the longest path. Compare the stochastic path example in Chapter 4.

ExampleRanking / selection (mm-sets)

Choose mm of dd ads to display: A={a:∥a∥1=m}\mathcal A = \{a : \lVert a\rVert_1 = m\}. Order doesn’t matter here (“selection”). Position-dependent ranking is Chapter 32.

ExampleMulti-task bandits

Play mm separate kk-armed bandits at once but observe only the sum of their losses: d=mkd = mk and A={a∈{0,1}d:∑i=1kai+kj=1 ∀0≤j<m}\mathcal A = \{a\in\{0,1\}^d : \sum_{i=1}^ka_{i+kj} = 1\ \forall0\le j < m\}, one primitive action per block. This arises with several simultaneous business interventions whose effects show up only as one revenue change. It is the lower-bound construction from Chapter 24.


Bandit feedback

TheoremTheorem 30.1 — Linear Exp3 on combinatorial sets

Running linear Exp3 (Algorithm 15) on A\mathcal A with a tuned learning rate,

Rn≤2m3dnlog⁡∣A∣≤m3/212dnlog⁡edmR_n\le2m\sqrt{3dn\log\lvert\mathcal A\rvert}\le m^{3/2}\sqrt{12dn\log\frac{ed}m}

ProofRescale Theorem 27.1, then count actions (Exercise 30.1)

Losses ⟨a,y⟩\langle a,y\rangle lie in [0,m][0,m] rather than [−1,1][-1,1], so dividing by mm and applying Theorem 27.1 gives the factor mm. For the second inequality: ∣A∣≤Φm(d)=∑i≤m(di)≤(ed/m)m\lvert\mathcal A\rvert\le\Phi_m(d) = \sum_{i\le m}\binom di\le(ed/m)^m, so log⁡∣A∣≤mlog⁡(ed/m)\log\lvert\mathcal A\rvert\le m\log(ed/m).

∎

WarningTwo computational obstacles, with no silver bullet

  1. Exploration design: finding the Kiefer–Wolfowitz core set (the centred minimum-volume ellipsoid) for an exponentially large A\mathcal A is hopeless in general.
  2. Sampling from exponential weights over A\mathcal A may be intractable.

Hardness: combinatorial bandits can encode repeated travelling salesman, which is hard even to approximate. An online algorithm with O(np)O(n^p) regret for p<1p < 1 would yield an approximation algorithm, so no such algorithm can be efficient for every A\mathcal A (Papadimitriou–Vempala 2006). Efficient special cases exist (Cesa-Bianchi–Lugosi 2012). Replacing the optimal design with an efficiently computable exploration distribution trades regret for computation, as (27.1) allows.


Semi-bandit feedback and mirror descent

DefinitionCoordinatewise importance weighting

With Aˉti=E[Ati∣Ft−1]\bar A_{ti} = \mathbb E[A_{ti}\mid\mathcal F_{t-1}] (the marginal probability that coordinate ii is on),

Y^ti=AtiytiAˉti(30.1)\hat Y_{ti} = \frac{A_{ti}y_{ti}}{\bar A_{ti}} \tag{30.1}

which is unbiased. Each coordinate is estimated separately, exactly like Exp3’s estimator applied per coordinate. No Qt−1Q_t^{-1} and no exploration design are needed.

AlgorithmOnline stochastic mirror descent for semi-bandits (Algorithm 18)

Start at Aˉ1=arg⁡min⁡a∈co(A)F(a)\bar A_1 = \arg\min_{a\in\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A)}F(a). For each round:

  1. find a distribution PtP_t on A\mathcal A with ∑aPt(a)a=Aˉt\sum_aP_t(a)a = \bar A_t;
  2. sample At∼PtA_t\sim P_t and observe AtiytiA_{ti}y_{ti} for all ii;
  3. set Y^ti=Atiyti/Aˉti\hat Y_{ti} = A_{ti}y_{ti}/\bar A_{ti};
  4. update Aˉt+1=arg⁡min⁡a∈co(A)η⟨a,Y^t⟩+DF(a,Aˉt)\bar A_{t+1} = \arg\min_{a\in\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A)}\eta\langle a,\hat Y_t\rangle + D_F(a,\bar A_t).

TheoremTheorem 30.2 — Semi-bandit regret with negentropy

With F(a)=∑i(ailog⁡ai−ai)F(a) = \sum_i(a_i\log a_i - a_i) on [0,∞)d[0,\infty)^d and η=2m(1+log⁡(d/m))/(nd)\eta = \sqrt{2m(1 + \log(d/m))/(nd)},

Rn≤2nmd(1+log⁡(d/m))R_n\le\sqrt{2nmd\big(1 + \log(d/m)\big)}

ProofDiameter by Jensen; stability by one-sided truncation and the negentropy Hessian

Step 1: by Theorem 28.10,

Rn≤diamF(co A)η+E∑t(⟨Aˉt−Aˉt+1,Y^t⟩−1ηDF(Aˉt+1,Aˉt))(30.2)R_n\le\frac{\mathrm{diam}_F(\mathrm{co}\,\mathcal A)}\eta + \mathbb E\sum_t\Big(\langle\bar A_t - \bar A_{t+1},\hat Y_t\rangle - \frac1\eta D_F(\bar A_{t+1},\bar A_t)\Big) \tag{30.2}

Step 2: Diameter. On co(A)⊆[0,1]d\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A)\subseteq[0,1]^d, F≤0F\le0 and −F(a)=∑i(ai+ailog⁡1ai)-F(a) = \sum_i(a_i + a_i\log\frac1{a_i}). With ∑iai≤m\sum_ia_i\le m, Jensen puts the entropy term’s maximum at ai=m/da_i = m/d, giving at most mlog⁡dmm\log\frac dm. So diamF≤m(1+log⁡(d/m))\mathrm{diam}_F\le m(1 + \log(d/m)).

Step 3: Keep only the coordinates that shrink. Let Y^ti′=Y^ti I{Aˉt+1,i≤Aˉti}\hat Y_{ti}' = \hat Y_{ti}\,\mathbb I\{\bar A_{t+1,i}\le\bar A_{ti}\}. Since Y^≥0\hat Y\ge0, the dropped coordinates contribute (Aˉti−Aˉt+1,i)Y^ti≤0(\bar A_{ti} - \bar A_{t+1,i})\hat Y_{ti}\le0, so replacing Y^\hat Y by Y^′\hat Y' only increases the inner product.

Step 4: Local norm. By Theorem 26.13, with ZtZ_t on the chord and (∇2F(z))−1=diag(z)(\nabla^2F(z))^{-1} = \mathrm{diag}(z). On the kept coordinates Zti≤AˉtiZ_{ti}\le\bar A_{ti}, so

⟨Aˉt−Aˉt+1,Y^t′⟩−1ηDF≤η2∑iAˉti(AtiytiAˉti)2≤η2∑iAtiAˉti\langle\bar A_t - \bar A_{t+1},\hat Y_t'\rangle - \frac1\eta D_F\le\frac\eta2\sum_i\bar A_{ti}\Big(\frac{A_{ti}y_{ti}}{\bar A_{ti}}\Big)^2\le\frac\eta2\sum_i\frac{A_{ti}}{\bar A_{ti}}

whose expectation is ηd2\frac{\eta d}2.

Step 5: Rn≤m(1+log⁡(d/m))η+ηnd2R_n\le\frac{m(1 + \log(d/m))}\eta + \frac{\eta nd}2, then tune η\eta.

∎

IntuitionWhy md\sqrt{md} and not mdm\sqrt d

The variance term is ∑iAti/Aˉti\sum_iA_{ti}/\bar A_{ti}, with expectation dd regardless of mm: each coordinate is estimated from its own observation. The regulariser’s range is only mlog⁡(d/m)m\log(d/m). Playing mirror descent on distributions over A\mathcal A (dimension ∣A∣−1\lvert\mathcal A\rvert - 1) instead gives the worse O(mdnlog⁡(d/m))O(m\sqrt{dn\log(d/m)}). Working in the dd-dimensional hull is what saves the factor.

WarningComputation still bites

Each round needs:

  1. Decomposition: a distribution on A\mathcal A with mean Aˉt\bar A_t. Carathéodory guarantees support of at most d+1d+1 points, but a naive linear program is polynomial in ∣A∣\lvert\mathcal A\rvert, i.e. exponential in mm.
  2. The mirror step: a convex problem over co(A)\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A), whose cost depends on how co(A)\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A) is represented.

Roughly sufficient: an efficient membership oracle for co(A)\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A) and an evaluation oracle for FF (Grötschel et al.; Lee et al. 2018). Semi-bandits with negentropy need no exploration design.

Examplemm-sets are efficient (Exercise 30.2)

co(A)={x∈[0,1]d:∑ixi=m}\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A) = \{x\in[0,1]^d : \sum_ix_i = m\}, a capped simplex.

  • Mirror step: multiply each coordinate by e−ηY^tie^{-\eta\hat Y_{ti}}, then KL-project onto the capped simplex. This is renormalisation with coordinates clipped at 1, found by sorting / water-filling (the cap-at-1 analogue of Exercise 26.12).
  • Decomposition: systematic sampling. Lay the xix_i end to end on [0,m)[0,m), draw U∼U[0,1)U\sim\mathcal U[0,1), and select the ii whose interval contains one of U,U+1,…,U+m−1U, U+1, \ldots, U+m-1. Since xi≤1x_i\le1, exactly mm distinct indices are chosen, each with probability exactly xix_i.

(Construction worked here.)

ExampleShortest paths via weight pushing (Exercise 30.3)

Losses are additive over edges, so exponential weights over paths factor into edge weights: exp⁡(−η∑e∈aL^e)=∏e∈ae−ηL^e\exp(-\eta\sum_{e\in a}\hat L_e) = \prod_{e\in a}e^{-\eta\hat L_e}. On a DAG, dynamic programming (weight pushing) samples a path with probability proportional to this product, and computes each edge’s marginal probability (needed for the semi-bandit estimator) in polynomial time. This gives O(n)O(\sqrt n) regret with computation polynomial in n,dn, d (Takimoto–Warmuth 2003; György et al. 2007).


Follow-the-perturbed-leader

Assumption. An efficient oracle computes a∗=arg⁡min⁡a∈A⟨a,y⟩a^* = \arg\min_{a\in\mathcal A}\langle a,y\rangle for any y∈[0,∞)dy\in[0,\infty)^d (30.3). This is close to the minimal assumption: if the offline problem is hard to approximate, low regret is computationally impossible.

AlgorithmFTPL for semi-bandits (Algorithm 19)

With L^t−1=∑s<tY^s\hat L_{t-1} = \sum_{s<t}\hat Y_s and perturbation distribution QQ:

  1. sample Zt∼QZ_t\sim Q;
  2. play At=arg⁡max⁡a∈A⟨a,Zt−ηL^t−1⟩A_t = \arg\max_{a\in\mathcal A}\langle a,Z_t - \eta\hat L_{t-1}\rangle, one oracle call;
  3. observe AtiytiA_{ti}y_{ti} for all ii;
  4. for each ii, sample Kti∼Geometric(Pti)K_{ti}\sim\mathrm{Geometric}(P_{ti}) (see below) and set Y^ti=min⁡(β,Kti)Atiyti\hat Y_{ti} = \min(\beta,K_{ti})A_{ti}y_{ti};
  5. L^t=L^t−1+Y^t\hat L_t = \hat L_{t-1} + \hat Y_t.

IntuitionPerturbation replaces regularisation

Follow-the-leader fails because it is deterministic and unstable. Adding random noise ZtZ_t to the cumulative losses both guards against the adversary (randomisation) and induces exploration. A small η\eta means relatively more noise and more exploration, just like the learning rate in exponential weights. (FTPL with Gumbel noise is exactly Exp3: Exercise 11.8.)

FTPL is mirror descent

DerivationFinding the potential

Mirror descent with Legendre FF and dom(∇F)=int(co A)\mathrm{dom}(\nabla F) = \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{co}\,\mathcal A) satisfies ∇F(Aˉt)=−ηL^t−1\nabla F(\bar A_t) = -\eta\hat L_{t-1}, so Aˉt=∇F∗(−ηL^t−1)\bar A_t = \nabla F^*(-\eta\hat L_{t-1}) (Theorem 26.6). FTPL has Aˉt=E[a(Zt−ηL^t−1)∣Ft−1]\bar A_t = \mathbb E[a(Z_t - \eta\hat L_{t-1})\mid\mathcal F_{t-1}] with a(x)=arg⁡max⁡a∈A⟨a,x⟩a(x) = \arg\max_{a\in\mathcal A}\langle a,x\rangle. So FTPL is mirror descent if

∇F∗(x)=∫a(x+z) dQ(z)\nabla F^*(x) = \int a(x + z)\,dQ(z)

The support function does it. ϕ(x)=max⁡a∈A⟨a,x⟩\phi(x) = \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\langle a,x\rangle is convex with ∇ϕ(x)=a(x)\nabla\phi(x) = a(x) almost everywhere (Danskin; convex functions are differentiable a.e.). For absolutely continuous QQ, differentiation passes inside the integral (Exercise 30.5). So define

F∗(x)=∫ϕ(x+z) dQ(z)(30.5)F^*(x) = \int\phi(x + z)\,dQ(z) \tag{30.5}

a smoothed support function, and let FF be its (closed, proper) Fenchel dual. For QQ with an everywhere-positive density and A\mathcal A spanning, FF is Legendre with int(domF)=int(co A)\mathrm{int}(\mathrm{dom}F) = \mathrm{int}(\mathrm{co}\,\mathcal A) (Exercise 30.6).

ImportantWhy make the connection

Classical FTPL analyses need a “leap of faith” step. Viewing FTPL as mirror descent makes the analysis mechanical: potential = dual of the smoothed support function, exploration distribution = the law of the perturbed argmax, plus an estimator. The smoothing by QQ is exactly what makes the potential strictly convex and the mirror map well defined.

Geometric resampling

WarningThe marginals have no closed form

The natural estimator Atiyti/PtiA_{ti}y_{ti}/P_{ti} needs Pti=P(Ati=1∣Ft−1)P_{ti} = \mathbb P(A_{ti} = 1\mid\mathcal F_{t-1}), the probability under a perturbed argmax, which is generally not computable. Monte Carlo estimation would need many samples.

LemmaLemma 30.3 — An unbiased estimate of 1/P1/P

If U∼Geometric(θ)U\sim\mathrm{Geometric}(\theta), i.e. P(U=j)=(1−θ)j−1θ\mathbb P(U = j) = (1-\theta)^{j-1}\theta, then E[U]=1/θ\mathbb E[U] = 1/\theta. Sample it by re-running the perturbed oracle with fresh noise until coordinate ii is on again, and counting the trials. Each trial is a Bernoulli(Pti)\mathrm{Bernoulli}(P_{ti}) coin.

DefinitionGeometric-resampling estimator (Neu 2015)

Kti∣Ft∼Geometric(Pti)K_{ti}\mid\mathcal F_t\sim\mathrm{Geometric}(P_{ti}), conditionally independent across ii, and

Y^ti=min⁡(β,Kti)Atiyti\hat Y_{ti} = \min(\beta,K_{ti})A_{ti}y_{ti}

Without truncation E[KtiAtiyti∣Ft−1]=yti\mathbb E[K_{ti}A_{ti}y_{ti}\mid\mathcal F_{t-1}] = y_{ti}. The truncation at an integer β\beta keeps Y^\hat Y bounded, at the cost of a small downward bias: E[min⁡(β,K)]=∑j<β(1−P)j=1−(1−P)βP\mathbb E[\min(\beta,K)] = \sum_{j<\beta}(1-P)^j = \frac{1 - (1-P)^\beta}P, so E[Y^ti∣Ft−1]=(1−(1−Pti)β)yti\mathbb E[\hat Y_{ti}\mid\mathcal F_{t-1}] = (1 - (1 - P_{ti})^\beta)y_{ti}.

NoteRunning time

Sampling KtiK_{ti} for an “on” coordinate costs 1/Pti1/P_{ti} oracle calls in expectation, and E[Ati/Pti]=1\mathbb E[A_{ti}/P_{ti}] = 1. So the expected total is O(nd)O(nd) oracle calls, and truncating the resampling at β\beta caps the worst case at O(βnd)O(\beta nd).

Regret analysis

TheoremTheorem 30.4 — FTPL regret

With the Laplace perturbation q(z)=2−de−∥z∥1q(z) = 2^{-d}e^{-\lVert z\rVert_1},

η=2(1+log⁡d)(1+e2)dnm,β=⌈1ηm⌉\eta = \sqrt{\frac{2(1 + \log d)}{(1 + e^2)dnm}}, \qquad\beta = \Big\lceil\frac1{\eta m}\Big\rceil

and provided ηm≤1\eta m\le1,

Rn≤m2(1+e2)nd(1+log⁡d)R_n\le m\sqrt{2(1 + e^2)nd(1 + \log d)}

ProofMirror descent analysis plus a bias term

Step 1: Separate the bias. By linearity and Theorem 28.4 applied to the estimated losses,

Rn(a)≤diamFη+1ηE∑tDF(Aˉt,Aˉt+1)+E∑t⟨Aˉt−a,yt−Y^t⟩(30.6)R_n(a)\le\frac{\mathrm{diam}_F}\eta + \frac1\eta\mathbb E\sum_tD_F(\bar A_t,\bar A_{t+1}) + \mathbb E\sum_t\langle\bar A_t - a,y_t - \hat Y_t\rangle \tag{30.6}

Step 2: Diameter. With x=0x = 0 in the dual definition, F(a)≥−Emax⁡b⟨b,Z⟩≥−m E∥Z∥∞=−m∑i=1d1i≥−m(1+log⁡d)F(a)\ge-\mathbb E\max_b\langle b,Z\rangle\ge-m\,\mathbb E\lVert Z\rVert_\infty = -m\sum_{i=1}^d\frac1i\ge-m(1 + \log d) (Hölder, ∥b∥1≤m\lVert b\rVert_1\le m, and the Laplace sup-norm identity below). By Jensen and centred ZZ, Eϕ(x+Z)≥ϕ(x)≥⟨a,x⟩\mathbb E\phi(x + Z)\ge\phi(x)\ge\langle a,x\rangle for a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, so F(a)≤0F(a)\le0. Hence diamF≤m(1+log⁡d)\mathrm{diam}_F\le m(1 + \log d) (30.8).

Step 3: Bregman via the dual Hessian. By Theorem 26.6(b) and Taylor, for some ξ\xi between −ηL^t−1-\eta\hat L_{t-1} and −ηL^t-\eta\hat L_t, DF(Aˉt,Aˉt+1)=DF∗(−ηL^t,−ηL^t−1)=η22∥Y^t∥∇2F∗(ξ)2D_F(\bar A_t,\bar A_{t+1}) = D_{F^*}(-\eta\hat L_t,-\eta\hat L_{t-1}) = \frac{\eta^2}2\lVert\hat Y_t\rVert^2_{\nabla^2F^*(\xi)} (30.9). A change of variables moves the gradient onto the density:

∇2F∗(x)=∫a(x+z) sign(z)⊤q(z) dz(30.10)\nabla^2F^*(x) = \int a(x + z)\,\mathrm{sign}(z)^\top q(z)\,dz \tag{30.10}

Step 4: Entries are controlled by the marginals. Since a(⋅)≥0a(\cdot)\ge0 and q(u+v)≤e∥v∥1q(u)q(u + v)\le e^{\lVert v\rVert_1}q(u),

∇2F∗(ξ)ij≤e∥αηY^t∥1∫a(u−ηL^t−1)iq(u) du≤e2Pti(30.11)\nabla^2F^*(\xi)_{ij}\le e^{\lVert\alpha\eta\hat Y_t\rVert_1}\int a(u - \eta\hat L_{t-1})_iq(u)\,du\le e^2P_{ti} \tag{30.11}

using ∥ηY^t∥1≤ηmβ≤ηm(1ηm+1)≤2\lVert\eta\hat Y_t\rVert_1\le\eta m\beta\le\eta m\big(\frac1{\eta m} + 1\big)\le2, which is where ηm≤1\eta m\le1 is needed.

Step 5: Expected stability. Since Y^≥0\hat Y\ge0, ∥Y^t∥∇2F∗(ξ)2≤e2∑i,jPtiY^tiY^tj≤e2∑i,jPtiKtiAtiKtjAtj\lVert\hat Y_t\rVert^2_{\nabla^2F^*(\xi)}\le e^2\sum_{i,j}P_{ti}\hat Y_{ti}\hat Y_{tj}\le e^2\sum_{i,j}P_{ti}K_{ti}A_{ti}K_{tj}A_{tj}. Off the diagonal, E[KtiKtj∣Ft]=1/(PtiPtj)\mathbb E[K_{ti}K_{tj}\mid\mathcal F_t] = 1/(P_{ti}P_{tj}), and E∑i,jAtiAtj/Ptj≤m∑jE[Atj]/Ptj=md\mathbb E\sum_{i,j}A_{ti}A_{tj}/P_{tj}\le m\sum_j\mathbb E[A_{tj}]/P_{tj} = md. So E[DF]≲e2mdη22\mathbb E[D_F]\lesssim\frac{e^2md\eta^2}2.

Step 6: Bias. The bias is nonnegative and a≥0a\ge0, so E⟨Aˉt−a,yt−Y^t⟩≤E∑iytiPti(1−Pti)β≤d2β\mathbb E\langle\bar A_t - a,y_t - \hat Y_t\rangle\le\mathbb E\sum_iy_{ti}P_{ti}(1 - P_{ti})^\beta\le\frac d{2\beta} per round, using x(1−x)s≤xe−sx≤1esx(1-x)^s\le xe^{-sx}\le\frac1{es}. Over nn rounds this is at most dnmη2\frac{dnm\eta}2.

Step 7: Rn≤m(1+log⁡d)η+(1+e2)dnmη2R_n\le\frac{m(1 + \log d)}\eta + \frac{(1 + e^2)dnm\eta}2, then tune η\eta.

∎

FormulaLaplace sup-norm (Exercise 30.4)

If ZZ has density 2−de−∥z∥12^{-d}e^{-\lVert z\rVert_1}, then E∥Z∥∞=∑i=1d1i=Hd≤1+log⁡d\mathbb E\lVert Z\rVert_\infty = \sum_{i=1}^d\frac1i = H_d\le1 + \log d. The ∣Zi∣\lvert Z_i\rvert are i.i.d. standard exponentials, and the maximum of dd exponentials has mean HdH_d: add the spacings, each a smaller exponential (Rényi). Equivalently E[Mj]=E[Mj−1]+E[e−Mj−1]\mathbb E[M_j] = \mathbb E[M_{j-1}] + \mathbb E[e^{-M_{j-1}}].

IntuitionWhat each term measures

The regulariser’s range (mlog⁡dm\log d) comes from how far the perturbation can push the argmax. Stability comes from the smoothness of the expected argmax: the dual Hessian is bounded by the marginals, so importance-weighted losses are tamed exactly where they are large. The bias is the price of truncating the geometric estimator. Compared with mirror descent (Theorem 30.2), FTPL loses a factor of about m\sqrt m in this generic analysis, but needs only the optimisation oracle.


Notes

RemarkLower bounds and tightness

  • Bandit feedback: the m3/2m^{3/2} in Theorem 30.1 was long suspected to be improvable to mm. It isn’t: Cohen et al. (2017) proved a matching lower bound.
  • Semi-bandit feedback: the worst case is Ω(dnm)\Omega(\sqrt{dnm}) for large nn and m≤d/2m\le d/2 (Exercise 30.8). Multi-task bandits give an easy proof: mm independent kk-armed bandits each cost about kn\sqrt{kn}, so mkn=mdnm\sqrt{kn} = \sqrt{mdn}. Mirror descent with a Tsallis-type potential (the INF analysis of Exercise 28.15, adapted) matches it up to constants (Exercise 30.7).

Theoremm\sqrt m improvement for mm-sets (Note 5; Exercises 30.9–30.10)

For A={a:∥a∥1=m}\mathcal A = \{a : \lVert a\rVert_1 = m\}, lowering coordinate jj‘s score can only help other coordinates enter the top mm: a(z+ξ)i≤a(z−2zjej+ξ)ia(z + \xi)_i\le a(z - 2z_je_j + \xi)_i for i≠ji\ne j and zj≥0z_j\ge0. Pairing zz with its jj-reflection in (30.10) shows the off-diagonal Hessian entries are nonpositive, so only diagonal terms survive and FTPL gets O~(mnd)\tilde O(\sqrt{mnd}). This fails for shortest paths: there, lowering one edge’s loss can pull a whole path, and hence another edge, into the solution (a graph where edges ii and jj lie on the same route).

WarningFTPL with bandit feedback is open

No general result is known. The obstacle is controlling the variance of a least-squares estimator without an explicit exploration design like Kiefer–Wolfowitz.

RemarkOther approaches for bandit feedback

Mirror descent on the convex hull without elaborate exploration gives near-optimal bounds for well-behaved action sets (Combes et al. 2015). Continuous exponential weights (Chapter 27) can also be efficient. Both must be checked case by case.

Stochastic combinatorial bandits

DefinitionThree stochastic models

  1. Xt=⟨At,θ⟩+ηtX_t = \langle A_t,\theta\rangle + \eta_t with θ\theta fixed (30.12): an ordinary stochastic linear bandit, handled by stochastic-linear-bandits tools.
  2. Xt=⟨At,θt⟩X_t = \langle A_t,\theta_t\rangle with θt\theta_t i.i.d. (30.13): parameter noise, closest to the adversarial model (Chapter 29).
  3. As in (2), but with the components of θt\theta_t independent (a product distribution): the most studied semi-bandit model, with frequentist (CombUCB, Kveton et al. 2015; Combes et al. 2015) and Bayesian (Thompson-sampling) algorithms.

Further work relaxes linearity to find the minimal structure that keeps learning statistically and computationally feasible in combinatorially large spaces.

RemarkHistory

Online combinatorial bandits: Cesa-Bianchi–Lugosi (2012), the best catalogue of efficiently solvable applications. FTPL: Hannan (1957), rediscovered by Kalai–Vempala (2002); applied to kk-armed bandits by Poland (2005) and Kujala–Elomaa (2005). Semi-bandits were introduced for shortest paths by György et al. (2007). The FTPL algorithm and geometric resampling are from Neu (2015). The mirror-descent analysis of FTPL is the book’s own, following Abernethy et al. (2014, 2015) and Cohen–Hazan (2015).


Quick reference

ObjectStatementNote
Action setA⊆{0,1}d\mathcal A\subseteq\{0,1\}^d, ∥a∥1≤m\lVert a\rVert_1\le mpaths, mm-sets, multi-task
Lossesyt∈[0,1]dy_t\in[0,1]^d∣⟨a,y⟩∣≤m\lvert\langle a,y\rangle\rvert\le m
Bandit, Exp32m3dnlog⁡∣A∣≤m3/212dnlog⁡(ed/m)2m\sqrt{3dn\log\lvert\mathcal A\rvert}\le m^{3/2}\sqrt{12dn\log(ed/m)}tight in mm; intractable in general
Countlog⁡∣A∣≤mlog⁡(ed/m)\log\lvert\mathcal A\rvert\le m\log(ed/m)∑i≤m(di)≤(ed/m)m\sum_{i\le m}\binom di\le(ed/m)^m
Semi-bandit estimatorY^ti=Atiyti/Aˉti\hat Y_{ti} = A_{ti}y_{ti}/\bar A_{ti}per-coordinate IW
MD, negentropy on co(A)\mathrm{co}(\mathcal A)2nmd(1+log⁡(d/m))\sqrt{2nmd(1 + \log(d/m))}variance dd, range mlog⁡(d/m)m\log(d/m)
DecompositionCarathéodory: support ≤d+1\le d+1naive LP exponential in mm
FTPLAt=arg⁡max⁡a⟨a,Zt−ηL^t−1⟩A_t = \arg\max_a\langle a,Z_t - \eta\hat L_{t-1}\rangleone oracle call
PotentialF∗(x)=E ϕ(x+Z)F^*(x) = \mathbb E\,\phi(x + Z), ∇F∗=E[a(x+Z)]\nabla F^* = \mathbb E[a(x + Z)]smoothed support function
Dual Hessian∫a(x+z) sign(z)⊤q(z) dz\int a(x+z)\,\mathrm{sign}(z)^\top q(z)\,dz, entries ≤e2Pti\le e^2P_{ti}Laplace density
Geometric resamplingY^ti=min⁡(β,Kti)Atiyti\hat Y_{ti} = \min(\beta,K_{ti})A_{ti}y_{ti}, K∼Geom(Pti)K\sim\mathrm{Geom}(P_{ti})bias (1−P)βy(1-P)^\beta y
FTPL regretm2(1+e2)nd(1+log⁡d)m\sqrt{2(1 + e^2)nd(1 + \log d)}ηm≤1\eta m\le1; O(nd)O(nd) expected oracle calls
mm-setsnonpositive off-diagonals give O~(mnd)\tilde O(\sqrt{mnd})fails for paths
Lower boundsbandit m3/2dnm^{3/2}\sqrt{dn}; semi-bandit mdn\sqrt{mdn}

Facts to keep to hand

  • Combinatorial bandits are linear bandits where computation is the binding constraint. Regret bounds follow from Chapters 27–28. The real question is what can be done with an offline optimisation oracle, and when even that is hard (TSP), efficient low regret is impossible.
  • Semi-bandit feedback changes everything. Per-coordinate importance weighting needs no exploration design. Mirror descent on the convex hull pays a variance of dd and a range of mlog⁡(d/m)m\log(d/m), giving mdnlog⁡(d/m)\sqrt{mdn\log(d/m)}, which is near-optimal.
  • FTPL = mirror descent with a smoothed support function. Perturbing then optimising implements the mirror map implicitly. Smoothness of the expected argmax controls stability, and geometric resampling turns oracle re-runs into unbiased (truncated) inverse probabilities. Total cost is O(nd)O(nd) oracle calls in expectation.
  • Structure determines the constants. mm-sets get m\sqrt m via negative correlations in the Hessian, shortest paths don’t. Bandit feedback provably costs m3/2m^{3/2}, semi-bandit only m\sqrt m.

References

  • Lattimore & Szepesvári, Bandit Algorithms — Chapter 30
  • Cesa-Bianchi & Lugosi, “Combinatorial Bandits” (2012)
  • Neu, “First-order regret bounds for combinatorial semi-bandits” (2015) — geometric resampling

← All notes