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.
Corresponds to Lattimore & Szepesvári, Chapter 30.
Motivation: huge action sets with cheap offline optimisation
DefinitionCombinatorial bandit
A linear bandit with : each action switches some of components “on”, subject to combinatorial constraints. In the adversarial model, the adversary fixes losses and
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 is typically exponential in . The hope is to rely on an efficient optimisation oracle (shortest path, top- selection, matching). If even the offline problem is hard, no efficient low-regret algorithm can exist.
DefinitionFeedback models
| Feedback | Learner observes | Example (route Budapest→Frankfurt→Singapore→Sydney) |
|---|---|---|
| Bandit | only | total travel time: 21 hours |
| Semi-bandit | , the loss of each “on” coordinate | each flight: 1h, 12h, 8h |
| Full information | the whole | every flight’s duration |
ConventionNotation and assumptions
- : at most components on at once.
- . Unlike Chapters 27–28’s polar-set assumption, this lets be as large as .
| Setting | Algorithm | Regret | Computation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bandit | Linear Exp3 + Kiefer–Wolfowitz | generally intractable | |
| Semi-bandit | Mirror descent, negentropy, on | projection + decomposition: case by case | |
| Semi-bandit | FTPL + geometric resampling | one oracle call per round (+ resampling) | |
| Lower bounds | — | bandit ; semi-bandit | — |
Applications
ExampleOnline shortest paths
A graph with and fixed endpoints . The adversary sets edge lengths each round. The learner picks a – path (its edge-incidence vector), with length . Here is the length of the longest path. Compare the stochastic path example in Chapter 4.
ExampleRanking / selection (-sets)
Choose of ads to display: . Order doesn’t matter here (“selection”). Position-dependent ranking is Chapter 32.
ExampleMulti-task bandits
Play separate -armed bandits at once but observe only the sum of their losses: and , 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 with a tuned learning rate,
ProofRescale Theorem 27.1, then count actions (Exercise 30.1)
Losses lie in rather than , so dividing by and applying Theorem 27.1 gives the factor . For the second inequality: , so .
∎
WarningTwo computational obstacles, with no silver bullet
- Exploration design: finding the Kiefer–Wolfowitz core set (the centred minimum-volume ellipsoid) for an exponentially large is hopeless in general.
- Sampling from exponential weights over may be intractable.
Hardness: combinatorial bandits can encode repeated travelling salesman, which is hard even to approximate. An online algorithm with regret for would yield an approximation algorithm, so no such algorithm can be efficient for every (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 (the marginal probability that coordinate is on),
which is unbiased. Each coordinate is estimated separately, exactly like Exp3’s estimator applied per coordinate. No and no exploration design are needed.
AlgorithmOnline stochastic mirror descent for semi-bandits (Algorithm 18)
Start at . For each round:
- find a distribution on with ;
- sample and observe for all ;
- set ;
- update .
TheoremTheorem 30.2 — Semi-bandit regret with negentropy
With on and ,
ProofDiameter by Jensen; stability by one-sided truncation and the negentropy Hessian
Step 1: by Theorem 28.10,
Step 2: Diameter. On , and . With , Jensen puts the entropy term’s maximum at , giving at most . So .
Step 3: Keep only the coordinates that shrink. Let . Since , the dropped coordinates contribute , so replacing by only increases the inner product.
Step 4: Local norm. By Theorem 26.13, with on the chord and . On the kept coordinates , so
whose expectation is .
Step 5: , then tune .
∎
IntuitionWhy and not
The variance term is , with expectation regardless of : each coordinate is estimated from its own observation. The regulariser’s range is only . Playing mirror descent on distributions over (dimension ) instead gives the worse . Working in the -dimensional hull is what saves the factor.
WarningComputation still bites
Each round needs:
- Decomposition: a distribution on with mean . Carathéodory guarantees support of at most points, but a naive linear program is polynomial in , i.e. exponential in .
- The mirror step: a convex problem over , whose cost depends on how is represented.
Roughly sufficient: an efficient membership oracle for and an evaluation oracle for (Grötschel et al.; Lee et al. 2018). Semi-bandits with negentropy need no exploration design.
Example-sets are efficient (Exercise 30.2)
, a capped simplex.
- Mirror step: multiply each coordinate by , 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 end to end on , draw , and select the whose interval contains one of . Since , exactly distinct indices are chosen, each with probability exactly .
(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: . 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 regret with computation polynomial in (Takimoto–Warmuth 2003; György et al. 2007).
Follow-the-perturbed-leader
Assumption. An efficient oracle computes for any (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 and perturbation distribution :
- sample ;
- play , one oracle call;
- observe for all ;
- for each , sample (see below) and set ;
- .
IntuitionPerturbation replaces regularisation
Follow-the-leader fails because it is deterministic and unstable. Adding random noise to the cumulative losses both guards against the adversary (randomisation) and induces exploration. A small 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 and satisfies , so (Theorem 26.6). FTPL has with . So FTPL is mirror descent if
The support function does it. is convex with almost everywhere (Danskin; convex functions are differentiable a.e.). For absolutely continuous , differentiation passes inside the integral (Exercise 30.5). So define
a smoothed support function, and let be its (closed, proper) Fenchel dual. For with an everywhere-positive density and spanning, is Legendre with (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 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 needs , 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
If , i.e. , then . Sample it by re-running the perturbed oracle with fresh noise until coordinate is on again, and counting the trials. Each trial is a coin.
DefinitionGeometric-resampling estimator (Neu 2015)
, conditionally independent across , and
Without truncation . The truncation at an integer keeps bounded, at the cost of a small downward bias: , so .
NoteRunning time
Sampling for an “on” coordinate costs oracle calls in expectation, and . So the expected total is oracle calls, and truncating the resampling at caps the worst case at .
Regret analysis
TheoremTheorem 30.4 — FTPL regret
With the Laplace perturbation ,
and provided ,
ProofMirror descent analysis plus a bias term
Step 1: Separate the bias. By linearity and Theorem 28.4 applied to the estimated losses,
Step 2: Diameter. With in the dual definition, (Hölder, , and the Laplace sup-norm identity below). By Jensen and centred , for , so . Hence (30.8).
Step 3: Bregman via the dual Hessian. By Theorem 26.6(b) and Taylor, for some between and , (30.9). A change of variables moves the gradient onto the density:
Step 4: Entries are controlled by the marginals. Since and ,
using , which is where is needed.
Step 5: Expected stability. Since , . Off the diagonal, , and . So .
Step 6: Bias. The bias is nonnegative and , so per round, using . Over rounds this is at most .
Step 7: , then tune .
∎
FormulaLaplace sup-norm (Exercise 30.4)
If has density , then . The are i.i.d. standard exponentials, and the maximum of exponentials has mean : add the spacings, each a smaller exponential (Rényi). Equivalently .
IntuitionWhat each term measures
The regulariser’s range () 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 in this generic analysis, but needs only the optimisation oracle.
Notes
RemarkLower bounds and tightness
- Bandit feedback: the in Theorem 30.1 was long suspected to be improvable to . It isn’t: Cohen et al. (2017) proved a matching lower bound.
- Semi-bandit feedback: the worst case is for large and (Exercise 30.8). Multi-task bandits give an easy proof: independent -armed bandits each cost about , so . Mirror descent with a Tsallis-type potential (the INF analysis of Exercise 28.15, adapted) matches it up to constants (Exercise 30.7).
Theorem improvement for -sets (Note 5; Exercises 30.9–30.10)
For , lowering coordinate ‘s score can only help other coordinates enter the top : for and . Pairing with its -reflection in (30.10) shows the off-diagonal Hessian entries are nonpositive, so only diagonal terms survive and FTPL gets . 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 and 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
- with fixed (30.12): an ordinary stochastic linear bandit, handled by stochastic-linear-bandits tools.
- with i.i.d. (30.13): parameter noise, closest to the adversarial model (Chapter 29).
- As in (2), but with the components of 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 -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
| Object | Statement | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Action set | , | paths, -sets, multi-task |
| Losses | ||
| Bandit, Exp3 | tight in ; intractable in general | |
| Count | ||
| Semi-bandit estimator | per-coordinate IW | |
| MD, negentropy on | variance , range | |
| Decomposition | Carathéodory: support | naive LP exponential in |
| FTPL | one oracle call | |
| Potential | , | smoothed support function |
| Dual Hessian | , entries | Laplace density |
| Geometric resampling | , | bias |
| FTPL regret | ; expected oracle calls | |
| -sets | nonpositive off-diagonals give | fails for paths |
| Lower bounds | bandit ; semi-bandit |
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 and a range of , giving , 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 oracle calls in expectation.
- Structure determines the constants. -sets get via negative correlations in the Hessian, shortest paths don’t. Bandit feedback provably costs , semi-bandit only .
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