Re:Why multi-armed bandit algorithm is not "better" than A/B...
by btilly on Friday June 01, 2012 @02:40PM
(#4054934)
The article is interesting, but assumed you get to pull all of the arms at once, and see all of the results. That's different from the website optimization problem.
The book looks like it would take a long time to work through, and they don't get to the multi-armed bandit problem until chapter 6. It goes into my todo list, but is likely to take a while to get off of it...
Re:Why multi-armed bandit algorithm is not "better" than A/B...
by sparsevector on Friday June 01, 2012 @03:37PM
(#4055273)
Yes, I realized after posting that this is probably a better paper to link to: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~yfreund/papers/bandits.pdf
The algorithms for the partial information setting are sometimes surprisingly similar to the algorithms where you see all the results. The algorithm in the paper linked above is essentially the same algorithm but with a small exploration probability. The regret bound gets worse by a factor of sqrt(N), however.
Re:Why multi-armed bandit algorithm is not "better" than A/B...
by noelwelsh on Friday June 01, 2012 @03:30PM
(#4055238)
I don't think the non-stochastic setting is entirely appropriate. What we've been discussing is a situation where the differences in conversion rates are constant in expectation, though absolute conversion rates vary. So it's basically a stochastic setting, which should allow more leverage. Also, as I recall for the non-stochastic setting the definition of regret changes so the regret bounds are not directly comparable.
Re:Why multi-armed bandit algorithm is not "better" than A/B...
by sparsevector on Friday June 01, 2012 @03:54PM
(#4055387)
My take on btilly's problem was that the difference between the convergence rates is not constant but rather known to be bounded away from zero by some unknown constant. That is, there is some value epsilon such that the difference in conversion rate is on every round at least epsilon. However, at some rounds it could be more than epsilon, and it doesn't necessarily vary according to any fixed distribution. I think this is therefore roughly equivalent to the non stochastic setting additionally assuming the best arm has large (relative) reward.
I agree though that if the difference in conversion rate were stochastic that could potentially make the problem much easier.
There are many, many different variations of the method and result. For example, you can show improved results assuming different things about the rewards. For exapmle, you can show O(log(T)) regret with certain additional assumptions. This is a really good book on different non-stochastic online learning problems: http://www.ii.uni.wroc.pl/~lukstafi/pmwiki/uploads/AGT/Predi...