306

PAC-Battling Bandits with Plackett-Luce: Tradeoff between Sample Complexity and Subset Size

Abstract

We introduce the probably approximately correct (PAC) version of the problem of {Battling-bandits} with the Plackett-Luce (PL) model -- an online learning framework where in each trial, the learner chooses a subset of knk \le n arms from a pool of fixed set of nn arms, and subsequently observes a stochastic feedback indicating preference information over the items in the chosen subset; e.g., the most preferred item or ranking of the top mm most preferred items etc. The objective is to recover an `approximate-best' item of the underlying PL model with high probability. This framework is motivated by practical settings such as recommendation systems and information retrieval, where it is easier and more efficient to collect relative feedback for multiple arms at once. Our framework can be seen as a generalization of the well-studied PAC-{Dueling-Bandit} problem over set of nn arms. We propose two different feedback models: just the winner information (WI), and ranking of top-mm items (TR), for any 2mk2\le m \le k. We show that with just the winner information (WI), one cannot recover the `approximate-best' item with sample complexity lesser than Ω(nϵ2ln1δ)\Omega\bigg( \frac{n}{\epsilon^2} \ln \frac{1}{\delta}\bigg), which is independent of kk, and same as the one required for standard dueling bandit setting (k=2k=2). However with top-mm ranking (TR) feedback, our lower analysis proves an improved sample complexity guarantee of Ω(nmϵ2ln1δ)\Omega\bigg( \frac{n}{m\epsilon^2} \ln \frac{1}{\delta}\bigg), which shows a relative improvement of 1m\frac{1}{m} factor compared to WI feedback, rightfully justifying the additional information gain due to the knowledge of ranking of topmost mm items. We also provide algorithms for each of the above feedback models, our theoretical analyses proves the {optimality} of their sample complexities which matches the derived lower bounds (upto logarithmic factors).

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper