Gaussian Presentation

1. 1
Multi-armed bandits
• At each time t pick arm i;
• get independent payoff ft with mean ui
• Classic model for exploration – exploitation tradeoff
• Extensively studied (Robbins ’52, Gittins ’79)
• Typically assume each arm is tried multiple times
• Goal: minimize regret
…
u1 u2 u3 uK
1
[ ]
t
T opt t
i
T E f
R 

  

2. 2
Infinite-armed bandits
…
p1 p2 p3 pk
… p∞
p1 p2
…
In many applications, number of arms is huge
(sponsored search, sensor selection)
Cannot try each arm even once
Assumptions on payoff function f essential

3. Optimizing Noisy, Unknown Functions
• Given: Set of possible inputs D;
black-box access to unknown function f
• Want: Adaptive choice of inputs
from D maximizing
• Many applications: robotic control [Lizotte
et al. ’07], sponsored search [Pande &
Olston, ’07], clinical trials, …
• Sampling is expensive
• Algorithms evaluated using regret
Goal: minimize

4. Running example: Noisy Search
• How to find the hottest point in a building?
• Many noisy sensors available but sampling is expensive
• D: set of sensors; : temperature at chosen at step i
Observe
• Goal: Find with minimal number of queries
4

5. Relating to us: Active learning for PMF
A bandit setting for movie recommendation
Task: recommend movies for a new user
M-armed Bandit
Movie item as arm of bandit
For a new user i
At each round t, pick a movie j
Observe a rating Xij
Goal: maximize cumulative reward
sum of the ratings of all recommended movies
Model: PMF
X=UV+E, where
U: N*K matrix, V: K*M matrix, E: N*M matrix, zero-mean normal distributed
Assume movie feature V is fully observed. User feature Ui is unknown at first
Xi(j) = Ui Vj + ε (regard the ith row vector of X as a function Xi)
Xi(.): random linear function
5

6. Key insight: Exploit correlation
• Sampling f(x) at one point x yields information about f(x’)
for points x’ near x
• In this paper:
Model correlation using a Gaussian process (GP) prior for f
6
Temperature is
spatially correlated

7. Gaussian Processes to model payoff f
• Gaussian process (GP) = normal distribution over functions
• Finite marginals are multivariate Gaussians
• Closed form formulae for Bayesian posterior update exist
• Parameterized by covariance function K(x,x’) = Cov(f(x),f(x’))
7
Normal dist.
(1-D Gaussian)
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Multivariate normal
(n-D Gaussian)
+
+
+
+
Gaussian process
(∞-D Gaussian)

8. 8
Thinking about GPs
• Kernel function K(x, x’) specifies covariance
• Encodes smoothness assumptions
x
f(x)
P(f(x))
f(x)

9. 9
Example of GPs
• Squared exponential kernel
K(x,x’) = exp(-(x-x’)2/h2)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Bandwidth h=.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Distance |x-x’|
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Bandwidth h=.3
Samples from P(f)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

10. Gaussian process optimization
[e.g., Jones et al ’98]
10
x
f(x)
Goal: Adaptively pick
inputs such that
Key question: how should we pick samples?
So far, only heuristics:
Expected Improvement [Močkus et al. ‘78]
Most Probable Improvement [Močkus ‘89]
Used successfully in machine learning [Ginsbourger et al. ‘08,
Jones ‘01, Lizotte et al. ’07]
No theoretical guarantees on their regret!

11. 11
Simple algorithm for GP optimization
• In each round t do:
• Pick
• Observe
• Use Bayes’ rule to get posterior mean
Can get stuck in local maxima!
11
x
f(x)

12. 12
Uncertainty sampling
Pick:
That’s equivalent to (greedily) maximizing
information gain
Popular objective in Bayesian experimental design
(where the goal is pure exploration of f)
But…wastes samples by exploring f everywhere!
12
x
f(x)

13. Avoiding unnecessary samples
Key insight: Never need to sample where Upper
Confidence Bound (UCB) < best lower bound! 13
x
f(x)
Best lower
bound

14. 14
Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) Algorithm
Naturally trades off explore and exploit; no samples wasted
Regret bounds: classic [Auer ’02] & linear f [Dani et al. ‘07]
But none in the GP optimization setting! (popular heuristic)
x
f(x)
Pick input that maximizes Upper Confidence Bound (UCB):
How should
we choose ¯t?
Need theory!

15. 15
How well does UCB work?
• Intuitively, performance should depend on how
“learnable” the function is
15
“Easy” “Hard”
The quicker confidence bands collapse, the easier to learn
Key idea: Rate of collapse  growth of information gain
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Bandwidth h=.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Bandwidth h=.1

16. Learnability and information gain
• We show that regret bounds depend on how quickly we can
gain information
• Mathematically:
• Establishes a novel connection between GP optimization
and Bayesian experimental design
16
T

17. 17
Performance of optimistic sampling
Theorem
If we choose ¯t = £(log t), then with high probability,
Hereby
The slower γT grows, the easier f is to learn
Key question: How quickly does γ T grow?
17
Maximal information gain
due to sampling!

18. Learnability and information gain
• Information gain exhibits diminishing returns (submodularity)
[Krause & Guestrin ’05]
• Our bounds depend on “rate” of diminishment
18
Little diminishing returns
Returns diminish fast

19. Dealing with high dimensions
Theorem: For various popular kernels, we have:
• Linear: ;
• Squared-exponential: ;
• Matérn with , ;
Smoothness of f helps battle curse of dimensionality!
Our bounds rely on submodularity of
19

20. What if f is not from a GP?
• In practice, f may not be Gaussian
Theorem: Let f lie in the RKHS of kernel K with ,
and let the noise be bounded almost surely by .
Choose .Then with high probab.,
• Frees us from knowing the “true prior”
• Intuitively, the bound depends on the “complexity” of
the function through its RKHS norm
20

21. Experiments: UCB vs. heuristics
• Temperature data
• 46 sensors deployed at Intel Research, Berkeley
• Collected data for 5 days (1 sample/minute)
• Want to adaptively find highest temperature as quickly as
possible
• Traffic data
• Speed data from 357 sensors deployed along highway I-880
South
• Collected during 6am-11am, for one month
• Want to find most congested (lowest speed) area as quickly as
possible
21

22. Comparison: UCB vs. heuristics
22
GP-UCB compares favorably with existing heuristics

23. 23
Assumptions on f
Linear?
[Dani et al, ’07]
Lipschitz-continuous
(bounded slope)
[Kleinberg ‘08]
Fast convergence;
But strong assumption
Very flexible, but

24. Conclusions
• First theoretical guarantees and convergence rates
for GP optimization
• Both true prior and agnostic case covered
• Performance depends on “learnability”, captured by
maximal information gain
• Connects GP Bandit Optimization & Experimental Design!
• Performance on real data comparable to other heuristics
24