arxiv: v1 [cs.lg] 7 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 Analysis of Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms Alihan Hüyük Bilkent University Cem Tekin Bilkent University arxiv: v [cs.lg] 7 Sep 208 Abstract We analyze the regret of combinatorial Thompson sampling CTS for the combinatorial multi-armed bandit with probabilistically triggered arms under the semi-bandit feedback setting. We assume that the learner has access to an exact optimization oracle but does not know the expected base arm outcomes beforehand. When the expected reward function is Lipschitz continuous in the expected base arm outcomes, we derive O m log T/p i i regret bound for CTS, where m denotes the number of base arms, p i denotes the minimum non-zero triggering probability of base arm i and i denotes the minimum suboptimality gap of base arm i. We also show that CTS outperforms combinatorial upper confidence bound CUCB via numerical experiments. Introduction Multi-armed bandit MAB exhibits the prime example of the tradeoff between exploration and exploitation faced in many reinforcement learning problems []. In the classical MAB, at each round the learner selects an arm which yields a random reward that comes from an unknown distribution. The goal of the learner is to maximize its expected cumulative reward over all rounds by learning to select arms that yield high rewards. The learner s performance is measured by its regret with respect to an oracle policy which always selects the arm with the highest expected reward. It is shown that when the arms rewards are independent, any uniformly good policy will incur at least logarithmic in time regret [2]. Several classes of policies are proposed for the learner to minimize its regret. These Copyright 208 by the authors. include Thompson sampling [3, 4, 5] and upper confidence bound UCB policies [2, 6, 7], which are shown to achieve logarithmic in time regret, and hence, are order optimal. Combinatorial multi-armed bandit CMAB [8, 9, 0] is an extension of MAB where the learner selects a super arm at each round, which is defined to be a subset of the base arms. Then, the learner observes and collects the reward associated with the selected super arm, and also observes the outcomes of the base arms that are in the selected super arm. This type of feedback is also called the semi-bandit feedback. For the special case when the expected reward of a super arm is a linear combination of the expected outcomes of the base arms that are in that super arm, it is shown in [9] that a combinatorial version of UCB in [7] achieves OKm log T/ gap-dependent and O KmT log T gap-free regrets, where m is the number of base arms, K is the maximum number of base arms in a super arm, and is the gap between the expected reward of the optimal super arm and the second best super arm. Later on, this setting is generalized to allow the expected reward of the super arm to be a more general function of the expected outcomes of the base arms that obeys certain monotonicity and bounded smoothness conditions [0]. The main challenge in the general case is that the optimization problem itself is NP-hard, but an approximately optimal solution can usually be computed efficiently for many special cases []. Therefore, it is assumed that the learner has access to an approximation oracle, which can output a super arm that has expected reward that is at least α fraction of the optimal reward with probability at least β when given the expected outcomes of the base arms. Thus, the regret is measured with respect to the αβ fraction of the optimal reward, and it is proven that a combinatorial variant of UCB, called CUCB, achieves O m log T/ i regret, when the bounded smoothness function is fx = γx for some γ > 0, where i is the minimum gap between the expected reward of the optimal super arm and the expected reward of any suboptimal super arm that contains base arm i.

2 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms Recently, it is shown in [2] that Thompson sampling can achieve O m log T/ i regret for the general CMAB under a Lipschitz continuity assumption on the expected reward, given that the learner has access to an exact computation oracle, which outputs an optimal super arm when given the set of expected base arm outcomes. Moreover, it is also shown that the learner cannot guarantee sublinear regret when it only has access to an approximation oracle. An interesting extension of CMAB is CMAB with probabilistically triggered arms PTAs [3] where the selected super arm probabilistically triggers a set of base arms, and the reward obtained in a round is a function of the set of probabilistically triggered base arms and their expected outcomes. For this problem, it is shown in [3] that logarithmic regret is achievable when the expected reward function has the l bounded smoothness property. However, this bound depends on /p, where p is the minimum non-zero triggering probability. Later, it is shown in [4] that under a more strict smoothness assumption on the expected reward function, called triggering probability modulated bounded smoothness, it is possible to achieve regret which does not depend on /p. It is also shown in this work that the dependence on /p is unavoidable for the general case. In another work [5], CMAB with PTAs is considered for the case when the arm triggering probabilities are all positive, and it is shown that both CUCB and CTS achieve bounded regret. Apart from the works mentioned above, numerous other works also tackle related online learning problems. For instance, [6] considers matroid MAB, which is a special case of CMAB where the super arms are given as independent sets of a matroid with base arms being the elements of the ground set, and the expected reward of a super arm is the sum of the expected outcomes of the base arms in the super arm. In addition, Thompson sampling is also analyzed for a parametric CMAB model given a prior with finite support in [7], and a contextual CMAB model with a Bayesian regret metric in [8]. Unlike these works, we adopt the models in [2] and [3], work in a setting where there is an unknown but fixed parameter expected outcome vector, and analyze the expected regret. To sum up, in this work we analyze the expected regret of CTS when the learner has access to an exact computation oracle, and prove that it achieves O m log T/p i i regret. Comparing this with the regret lower bound for CMAB with PTAs given in Theorem 3 in [4], we also observe that our regret bound is tight. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Problem formulation is given in Section 2. CTS algorithm is described in Section 3. Regret analysis of CTS is given in Section 4. Numerical results are given in Section 5, and concluding remarks are given in Section 6. Proofs of the lemmas that are used in the regret analysis are given in the supplemental document. 2 Problem Formulation Combinatorial multi-armed bandit CMAB is a decision making problem where the learner interacts with its environment through m base arms, indexed by the set [m] := {, 2,..., m} sequentially over rounds indexed by t [T ]. In this paper, we consider the general CMAB model introduced in [3] and borrow the notation from [2]. In this model, the following events take place in order in each round t: The learner selects a subset of base arms, denoted by St, which is called a super arm. St causes some other base arms to probabilistically trigger based on a stochastic triggering process, which results in a set of triggered base arms S t that contains St. The learner obtains a reward that depends on S t and observes the outcomes of the arms in S t. Next, we describe in detail the super arms, the triggering process, the reward and the outcomes. First of all, the learner is allowed to select St from a subset of 2 [m] denoted by I, which corresponds to the set of feasible super arms. Once St is selected, all base arms i St are immediately triggered. These arms can trigger other base arms that are not in St, and those arms can further trigger other base arms, and so on. Hence, triggering of the base arms may depend on each other. At the end, a random superset S t of St is formed that consists of all triggered base arms as a result of selecting St. The triggering process can be described by a set of triggering probabilities. Essentially, for each i [m] and S I, p S i := Pr[i S t St = S] denotes the probability that base arm i is triggered when super arm S is selected. Let S := {i [m] : p S i > 0} be the set of all base arms that could potentially be triggered by super arm S, which is called the triggering set of S. We have that St S t St [m]. We define p i := min S I:i S p S i as the minimum nonzero triggering probability of base arm i, and p := min i [m] p i as the minimum nonzero triggering probability. Next, we describe the base arm outcomes. After St is selected, the environment draws a random outcome vector Xt := X t, X 2 t,..., X m t from a fixed probability distribution D on [0, ] m independent of the previous rounds. Here X i t represents the outcome of base arm i. We define the mean outcome

3 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin parameter vector as µ := µ, µ 2,..., µ m, where µ i := E X D [X i t], and use µ S to denote the projection of µ on S for S [m]. Since CTS computes a posterior over µ, the following assumption is made to have an efficient and simple update of the posterior distribution. Assumption. The outcomes of all base arms are mutually independent, i.e., D = D D 2 D m. Note that this independence assumption is correct for many applications, including the influence maximization problem with independent cascade influence propagation model [9]. At the end of round t, the learner receives a reward that depends on the set of triggered arms S t and the outcome vector Xt, which is denoted by RS t, Xt. For simplicity of notation, we also use Rt := RS t, Xt to denote the reward in round t. Note that whether a base arm is in the selected super arm or is triggered afterwards is not relevant in terms of the reward. We also make two other assumptions about the reward function R, which are standard in the CMAB literature [2, 3]. Assumption 2. The expected reward of super arm S I only depends on S and the mean outcome vector µ, i.e., there exists a function r such that E[Rt] = E S t,xt D[RS t, Xt] = rst, µ. Assumption 3. Lipschitz continuity There exists a constant B > 0, such that for every super arm S and every pair of mean outcome vectors µ and µ, rs, µ rs,µ µ B µ S µ S, where denotes the l norm. We consider the semi-bandit feedback model, where at the end of round t, the learner observes the individual outcomes of the triggered arms, denoted by QS t, Xt := {i, X i t : i S t}. Again, for simplicity of notation, we also use Qt = QS t, Xt to denote the observation at the end of round t. Based on this, the only information available to the learner when choosing the super arm to select in round t + is its observation history, given as F t := {Sτ, Qτ : τ [t]}. In order to evaluate the performance of the learner, we define the set of optimal super arms given an m-dimensional parameter vector θ as OPTθ := argmax S I rs, θ. We use OPT := OPTµ to denote the set of optimal super arms given the true mean outcome vector µ. Based on this, we let S to represent a specific super arm in argmin S OPT S, which is the set of super arms that have triggering sets with minimum cardinality among all optimal super arms. We also let k := S and k := S. Next, we define the suboptimality gap due to selecting super arm S I as S := rs, µ rs, µ, the maximum suboptimality gap as max := max S I S, and the minimum suboptimality gap of base arm i as i := min S I OPT:i S S. The goal of the learner is to minimize the expected regret over the time horizon T, given by [ T ] RegT := E rs, µ rst, µ [ T ] = E St. 3 The Learning Algorithm Algorithm Combinatorial Thompson Sampling CTS. : For each base arm i, let a i =, b i = 2: for t =, 2,... do 3: For each base arm i, draw a sample θ i t from Beta distribution βa i, b i ; let θt := θ t,..., θ m t 4: Select super arm St = Oracleθt, get the observation Qt 5: for all i, X i Qt do 6: Y i with probability X i, 0 with probability X i 7: a i a i + Y i 8: b i b i + Y i 9: end for 0: end for We consider the CTS algorithm for CMAB with PTAs [2, 5] pseudocode given in Algorithm. We assume that the learner has access to an exact computation oracle, which takes as input a parameter vector θ and outputs a super arm, denoted by Oracleθ, such that Oracleθ OPTθ. CTS keeps a Beta posterior over the mean outcome of each base arm. At the beginning of round t, for each base arm i it draws a sample θ i t from its posterior distribution. Then, it forms the parameter vector in round t as θt := θ t,..., θ m t, gives it to the exact computational oracle, and selects the super arm St = Oracleθt. At the end of the round, CTS updates the posterior distributions of the triggered base arms using the observation Qt. 4 Regret Analysis 4. Main Theorem The regret bound for CTS is given in the following theorem. If there is no such super arm S, let i =.

4 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms Theorem. Under Assumptions, 2 and 3, for all D, the regret of CTS by round T is bounded as follows: RegT m max S I OPT:i S B 2 S log T ρp i S 2B k 2 + 2ε K max 2 ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p + α 8 k k 4 p ε 2 ε 2 + log k ε 2 max m max for all ρ 0,, and for all ε such that S I OPT, S > 2B k 2 +2ε, where B is the Lipschitz constant in Assumption 3, α > 0 is a problem independent constant that is also independent of T, and K max = max S I S is the maximum triggering set size among all super arms. We compare the result of Theorem with [3], which shows that the regret of CUCB is O i [m] log T/p i i, given an l bounded smoothness condition on the expected reward function, when the bounded smoothness function is fx = γx. When ε is sufficiently small, the regret bound in Theorem is asymptotically equivalent to the regret bound for CUCB in terms of the dependence on T, p i and i, i [m]. For the case with p = no probabilistic triggering, the regret bound in Theorem matches with the regret bound in Theorem in [2] in terms of the dependence on T and i, i [m]. As a final remark, we note that Theorem 3 in [4] shows that the /p i term in the regret bounds are unavoidable for the general case. 4.2 Preliminaries for the Proof The complement of set S is denoted by S or S c. The indicator function is given as I{ }. M i t := t τ= I{i Sτ} denotes the number of times base arm i is in the triggering set of the selected super arm, i.e., it is tried to be triggered, N i t := t τ= I{i S τ} denotes the number of times base arm i is triggered, and ˆµ i t := τ:τ<t,i S τ Y iτ denotes the empirical mean N it outcome of base arm i until round t, where Y i t is the Bernoulli random variable with mean X i t that is used for updating the posterior distribution that corresponds to base arm i in CTS. We define ls := S 2B S k 2 +2 S 2 ε ls ρp i as the trial threshold of base arm i with respect := max S I OPT:i S L i S. to super arm S, and L max i Consider an m-dimensional parameter vector θ. Similar to [2], given Z S, we say that the first bad event for Z, denoted by E Z, θ, holds when all θ = θ θ Z, θ Z c such that θ θ Z µ Z ε satisfies the following properties: Z Oracleθ θ. Either Oracleθ θ OPT or θ θ µ Oracleθ θ θ > Oracleθ θ B k 2 + ε. Oracleθ θ Given the same parameter vector θ, the second bad event for Z is defined as E Z,2 θ := θ Z µ Z > ε. In addition, similar to the regret analysis in [2], we will make use of the following events when bounding the regret: At := {St OPT} 2 { B i, t := ˆµ i t µ i > ε } St B i,2 t := {N i t ρp i M i t} { Bt := i St } : B i, t B i,2 t 3 { } Ct := i St : θ i t ˆµ i t > N i t 4 { Dt := θ St t µ St > } St B k 2 + ε 4.3 Regret Decomposition 5 Using the definitions of the events given in 2-5, the regret can be upper bounded as follows: RegT = E[I{At} St ] E[I{Bt At} St ] E[I{Ct At} St ] 7 E[I{ Bt Ct Dt At} St ] 8 + E[I{ Dt At} St ]. 9 as the sampling threshold of super arm S, L i S := The regret bound in Theorem is obtained by bounding

5 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin each term in the above decomposition. For this, we will make use of the facts and lemmas that are introduced in the following section. 4.4 Facts and Lemmas Fact. Multiplicative Chernoff Bound [2] and [3] Let X,..., X n be Bernoulli random variables taking values in {0, } such that E[X t X,..., X t ] µ for all t n, and Y = X X n. Then, for all δ 0,, Pr[Y δnµ] e δ2 nµ 2. Fact 2. Lemma 4 in [2] When CTS is run, the following holds for all base arms i [m]: [ ] Pr θ i t ˆµ i t > N i t T [ ] Pr ˆµ i t θ i t > N i t T Fact 3. Results from Lemma 7 in [2] Given Z S, let τ j be the round at which E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs for the jth time, and let τ 0 = 0. If i Z, N i τ j + q, then E τ j+ t=τ j+ I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt} B q i Z where B q is given as + 6α ε e ε2 B q = 2 2 q ε 2 e 8 ε2q 2 and α is a problem independent constant. Moreover, B q 3α 2 q=0 i Z if q > 8 ε 2 otherwise 2 2 Z +3 log Z ε 2 ε 2 Z +2 where α 2 is a problem independent constant. 0 Using these facts, we prove the following three lemmas proofs can be found in the supplemental document. Lemma. When CTS is run, we have E[ {t : t T, i St, ˆµ i t µ i > ε B i,2 t} ] + ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p for all i [m] and ρ 0,. Lemma 2. Suppose that Dt At happens. Then, there exists Z S such that Z and E Z, θt holds. Lemma 3. When CTS is run, for all Z S such that Z, we have E[I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt}] 3α 2 Z p 4.5 Main Proof of Theorem 4.5. Bounding 6 Using Lemma, we have E[I{Bt At} St ] max m 2 2 Z +3 log Z ε 2. ε 2 Z +2 E [ t : t T, i St, ˆµ i t µ i > ε ] B i,2 t K max K max 2 + ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p where K max = max S I S Bounding 7 By Fact 2, we have E[I{Ct At} St ] max m 2m max Bounding 8 [ Pr θ i t ˆµ i t > m max ] N i t For this, we first show that event Bt Ct Dt At cannot happen when M i t > L i St, i St. To see this, assume that both Bt Ct At and M i t > L i St, i St holds. Then, we must have θ St t ˆµ St t = θ i t ˆµ i t i St i St N i t 2

6 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms ρp i M i t i St ρp i L i St i St = lst i St St = i St = St 2B St k St ε St 2B St k St ε = St 2B k 2 + 2ε 3 4 where 2 holds when Ct happens, 3 holds when Bt happens, and 4 holds by the definition of L i St. We also know that ˆµ St t µ St ε, when Bt happens. Then, θ St t µ St θ St t ˆµ St t + ˆµ St t µ St St 2B k 2 + ε < St B k 2 + ε, which implies that Dt happens. Thus, we conclude that when Bt Ct Dt At happens, then there exists some i St such that M i t L i St. Let S t be the base arms i in St such that M i t > L i St, and S 2 t be the other base arms in St. By the result above, S 2 t. Next, we show that St 2B ρp i M i t. This holds since, i S 2t St B k 2 + ε < θ i t µ i t i St θ i t ˆµ i t + ˆµ i t µ i t i St i S t θ i t ˆµ i t + i S 2t St S t 2B St k St ε + θ i t ˆµ i t + ε i S 2t St 2B k 2 + ε + i S 2t θ i t ˆµ i t + ε θ i t ˆµ i t St 2B k 2 + ε + i S 2t St 2B k 2 + ε + i S 2t N i t ρp i M i t Fix i [m]. For w > 0, let ηw i be the round for which i S 2 ηw i and {t ηw i : i S 2 t} = w, and w i T := {t T : i S 2 t}. We have i S 2 ηw i Sη w i for all w > 0, which implies that M i ηw+ i w. Moreover, by the definition of S 2 t, we know that M i t L i St L max i for i S 2 t, t T. These two facts together imply that w i T L max i with probability. Consider the round τ i for which i St for the first time, i.e., τ i := min{t : i St}. We know that M i τ i = 0 L i S for all S, hence i S 2 τ i. Since t < τ i, i St, and i St implies i S 2 t, we conclude that τ i = η i. We also observe that Bt cannot happen for t τ i = η i, since N i t > ρp i M i t = 0 cannot be true when N i t M i t = 0. Then, E[I{ Bt Ct Dt At} St ] E = E i S 2t [ m I{ Bt}2B ρp i M i t I{i S 2 t, Bt} ] 2B ρp i M i t m E I{i S 2 t}2b ρp i M i t t=η i + L m max i η i w+ E I{i S 2 t} t=ηw i + ] 2B ρp i M i t L m max i = E 2B ρp i M i ηw+ i L m max i 2B ρp i w m 4B L max i 5 ρp i

7 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin where 5 holds since N n= /n 2 N Bounding 9 From Lemma 2, we know that E[I{ Dt At} St ] max Z S,Z T E[I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt}] since Dt At implies E Z, θt for some Z S, and E Z, θt E Z,2 θt implies either At or Dt. From Lemma 3, we have: Z S,Z T E[I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt}] Z S,Z 3α 2 Z p 3α 2 8 k k p log ε2 ε 2 3α 2 8 k p ε 2 Z S,Z 2 2 Z +3 log Z ε 2 ε 2 Z Z ε 2 Z k 4 ε 2 + log k ε Summing the Bounds The regret bound for CTS is computed by summing the bounds derived for terms 6-9 in the regret decomposition, which are given in the sections above: RegT m 4B L max i ρp i K max ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p m max 5 Numerical Results In this section, we compare CTS with CUCB in [3] in a cascading bandit problem [20], which is a special case of CMAB with PTAs. In this problem a search engine outputs a list of K web pages for each of its L users among a set of R web pages. Then, the users examine their respective lists, and click on the first page that they find attractive. If all pages fail to attract them, they do not click on any page. The goal of the search engine is to maximize the number of clicks. The problem can be modeled as a CMAB problem. The base arms are user-page pairs i, j, where i [L] and j [R]. User i finds page j attractive independent of other users and other pages, and the probability that user i finds page j attractive is given as p i,j. The super arms are L lists of K-tuples, where each K-tuple represents the list of pages shown to a user. Given a super arm S, let Si, k denote the kth page that is selected for user i. Then, the triggering probabilities can be written as if j = Si, p S i,j = k k = p i,si,k if k : j = Si, k 0 otherwise that is we observe feedback for a top selection immediately, and observe feedback for the other selections only if all previous selections fail to attract the user. The expected reward of playing super arm S can be written as L K rs, p = p i,si,k k= for which Assumption 3 holds when B =. + 3α 2 8 k p ε 2 m = max S I OPT:i S k 4 ε 2 + log k ε 2 max 6B 2 S log T ρp i S 2B k 2 + 2ε K max 2 ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p m max where α := 3α 2. + α 8 k k 4 p ε 2 ε 2 + log k ε 2 max Figure : Regrets of CTS and CUCB for the cascading bandit problem.

8 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms We let L = 00, R = 20 and K = 5, and generate p i,j s by sampling uniformly at random from [0, ]. We run both CTS and CUCB for 600 rounds, and report their regrets averaged over 000 runs in Figure. As expected TS significantly outperforms CUCB. Relatively bad performance of CUCB can be explained by excessive number of explorations due to the UCBs that stay high for large number of rounds. 6 Conclusion In this paper we analyzed the regret of CTS for CMAB with PTAs. We proved an order optimal regret bound when the expected reward function is Lipschitz continuous. Our bound includes the /p term that is unavoidable in general. Future work includes deriving regret bounds under more strict assumptions on the expected reward function such as the triggering probability modulated bounded smoothness condition given in [4] to get rid of the /p term. References [] H. Robbins, Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 55, pp , 952. [2] T. L. Lai and H. Robbins, Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules, Advances in Applied Mathematics, vol. 6, pp. 4 22, 985. [3] W. R. Thompson, On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples, Biometrika, vol. 25, no. 3/4, pp , 933. [4] S. Agrawal and N. Goyal, Analysis of Thompson sampling for the multi-armed bandit problem, in Proc. 25th Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pp , 202. [5] D. Russo and B. Van Roy, Learning to optimize via posterior sampling, Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp , 204. [6] R. Agrawal, Sample mean based index policies with Olog n regret for the multi-armed bandit problem, Advances in Applied Probability, vol. 27, no. 4, pp , 995. [7] P. Auer, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and P. Fischer, Finitetime analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem, Machine Learning, vol. 47, pp , [8] Y. Gai, B. Krishnamachari, and R. Jain, Combinatorial network optimization with unknown variables: Multi-armed bandits with linear rewards and individual observations, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 20, no. 5, pp , 202. [9] B. Kveton, Z. Wen, A. Ashkan, and C. Szepesvari, Tight regret bounds for stochastic combinatorial semi-bandits, in Proc. 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp , 205. [0] W. Chen, Y. Wang, and Y. Yuan, Combinatorial multi-armed bandit: General framework and applications, in Proc. 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5 59, 203. [] G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher, An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions I, Mathematical Programming, vol. 4, no., pp , 978. [2] S. Wang and W. Chen, Thompson sampling for combinatorial semi-bandits, in Proc. 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp , 208. [3] W. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Yuan, and Q. Wang, Combinatorial multi-armed bandit and its extension to probabilistically triggered arms, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, no., pp , 206. [4] Q. Wang and W. Chen, Improving regret bounds for combinatorial semi-bandits with probabilistically triggered arms and its applications, in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 6 7, 207. [5] A. O. Saritac and C. Tekin, Combinatorial multiarmed bandit with probabilistically triggered arms: A case with bounded regret, arxiv preprint arxiv: , pp. 6 7, 207. [6] B. Kveton, Z. Wen, A. Ashkan, H. Eydgahi, and B. Eriksson, Matroid bandits: Fast combinatorial optimization with learning, in Proc. 30th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp , 204. [7] A. Gopalan, S. Mannor, and Y. Mansour, Thompson sampling for complex online problems, in Proc. 3st International Conference on Machine Learning, pp , 204. [8] Z. Wen, B. Kveton, and A. Ashkan, Efficient learning in large-scale combinatorial semi-bandits, in Proc. 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3 22, 205. [9] D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and E. Tardos, Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network, in Proc. 9th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 37

9 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin 46, [20] B. Kveton, C. Szepesvari, Z. Wen, and A. Ashkan, Cascading bandits: Learning to rank in the cascade model, in Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp , 205. [2] M. Mitzenmacher and E. Upfal, Probability and computing: Randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

10 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms A Supplemental Document A. Proof of Lemma The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 3 in [2]. However, additional steps are required to take probabilistic triggering into account. Consider a base arm i [m]. Let τ i w be the round for which base arm i is in the triggering set of the selected super arm for the wth time. Hence, we have i Sτ i w for all w > 0. Also let τ i 0 = 0. Then, we have: E[ {t : t T, i St, ˆµ i t µ i > ε B i,2 t} ] [ T ] = E I{i St, ˆµ i t µ i > ε B i,2 t} τ i w+ E I{i St, ˆµ i t µ i > ε B i,2 t} w=0 t=τw i + = E[I{i Sτ w+, i ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε B i,2 τw+}] i = w=0 E[I{ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε B i,2 τw+}] i w=0 + = + = Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε B i,2 τw+] i Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε B i,2 τw+] i + Pr[B i,2 τw+] i Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε, N i τw+ i > ρwp i ] + Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε, N i τw+ i > ρwp ] + 2e 2 ρwp ɛ 2 + I{p < } ρp ε 2 + 2I{p < } ρ 2 p where the second term in 6 is obtained by observing that Pr[N i τw+ i ρwp i ] Pr[N i τw+ i ρwp i ] e ρ2 wp 2 6 Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε, N i τw+ i > ρwp ] Pr[ ˆµ i τw+ i µ i > ε N i τw+ i = k] Pr[N i τw+ i = k] k= ρwp and applying Hoeffding s inequality, and the third term in 6 is obtained by using Fact. A.2 Proof of Lemma 2 The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma in [2]. Let θ := θ θ S, θ S ct be such that θ θ µ S S ε. 7 Claim : For all S such that S S =, S Oracleθ θ.

11 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin Claim holds since rs,θ θ = rs, θt 8 rst, θt 9 St rst, µ + B B k 2 + ε 20 = rst, µ + St B k 2 + ε = rs, µ B k 2 + ε 2 < rs, µ B k ε rs,θ θ 22 θ where 8 follows from Assumption 3 since θ and θt only differ on arms in S and S S =, 9 holds since St OPTθt, 20 is by Dt and Assumption 3, 2 is by the definition of St, and 22 is again by Assumption 3. Next, we consider two cases: Case a: S Oracleθ θ for all θ = θ θ S, θ S ct that satisfies 7. Case b: There exists θ = θ θ S, θ S ct that satisfies 7 for which S Oracleθ θ. For this θ, let S = Oracleθ θ and Z = S S. Together with Claim, for this case, we have Z S and Z. Note that Case a and Case b are complements of each other. θ When Case a is true, for any given θ, with an abuse of notation, let S 0 := Oracleθ θ. Then, we have rs 0,θ θ rs,θ θ rs, µ B k ε. If S 0 OPT, then we have rs, µ = rs 0, µ + S0. Combining the two results above, we obtain rs 0,θ θ rs 0, µ + S0 B k ε. By Assumption 3, this implies that θ θ µ S0 S0 S 0 B k ε > S 0 B k 2 + ε. Thus, from the discussion above, we conclude that either S 0 OPT or θ θ µ S0 S0 > S 0 B k 2 + ε. This means E S, θ θ = E S,θt holds. Hence, if Case a is true, then Lemma 2 holds for Z = S. In Case b, we also have rs,θ θ rs,θ θ rs, µ B k ε. Consider any θ = θ θ Z, θ Z c t such that θ θ Z µ Z ε. 23 θ We see that θ θ θ S S = i S S θ i θ i + i S S c θ θ i µ i + µ i θ i i Z 2 k ε i θ i θ hence rs,θ θ rs,θ θ 2B k ε rs, µ B k ε 2B k ε = rs, µ B3 k 2ε. Claim 2: For all S such that S Z =, S Oracleθ θ. Similar to Claim, Claim 2 holds since rs,θ θ = rs, θt rst, θt rst, µ + B St B k 2 + ε = rst, µ + St B k 2 + ε = rs, µ B k 2 + ε

12 Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Multi-armed Bandit with Probabilistically Triggered Arms where 24 holds since k 2 in Case b. < rs, µ B3 k 2ε 24 rs,θ θ Claim 2 implies that when Case b holds, we have Oracleθ θ Z. Hence, we consider two cases again for Oracleθ θ : Case 2a: Z Oracleθ θ for all θ = θ θ Z, θ Z c t that satisfies 23. Case 2b: There exists θ = θ θ Z, θ Z c t that satisfies 23 for which Z Oracleθ θ. For this θ let S 2 = Oracleθ θ and Z 2 = S 2 Z. Together with Claim 2, for this case, we have Z 2 Z and Z 2. Similar to Case a, when Case 2a is true, then Lemma 2 holds for Z = Z. Thus, we can keep repeating the same arguments iteratively, and the size of Z i will decrease by at least at each iteration. After at most k iterations, Case b will not be possible. In order to see this, suppose that we come to a point where Z i =. As in all iterations, either Casei + a or Casei + b must hold. However, when Casei + b holds, Claim i +, which follows from Caseib, implies that there exists a Z i+ Z i such that Z i+ and Z i+ Z i, which is not possible when Z i =. Therefore, we conclude that some Case i + a must hold, where Z i S, Z i, and E Zi,θt occurs. Finally, we need to show that Claim i + holds for all iterations. We focus on the claim rs, µ B k 2 + ε < rs, µ Bk + 2 i k kε as repeating other arguments for all iterations is straightforward. The given inequality is true as k + 2 i k= k k k + 2 k k= k k = k 2 < k 2 +. Note that, when checking Claim i +, we know that i previous iterations have passed, hence k must be larger than i +. A.3 Proof of Lemma 3 Given Z, we re-index the base arms in Z such that z i represents ith base arm in Z. We also introduce a counter ct, and let c =. If at round t, E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs and a feedback for z ct is observed, i.e., z ct S t, the counter is updated with probability p /p St z ct in the following way: ct + = { ct + if ct < Z if ct = Z If the counter is not updated at round t, ct + = ct. Note that when E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs, z ct Z Oracleθt = St, hence we always have 0 < p /p St z ct. Moreover, the probability that the counter is updated, i.e., ct + ct, given E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs is constant and equal to p for all rounds t for which E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs. To see this, consider a parameter vector θ such that E Z, θ E Z,2 θ holds and let S = Oracleθ, then Pr[ct + ct θt = θ] = Pr[z ct S t St = S] p /p S z ct = p S z ct p /p S z ct = p. Let τ j be the round at which E Z, θt E Z,2 θt occurs for the jth time, and let τ 0 := 0. Then, the counter is updated only at rounds τ j with probability p. Let η q,k be the round τ j such that cτ j + = k + and cτ j = k holds for the q + th time. Let η 0,0 = 0 and η q, Z = η q+,0. We know that 0 = η 0,0 < η 0, <... < η 0, Z = η,0 < η, <.... We use two important observations to continue with proof. Firstly, due to the way the counter is updated, for t η q,0 + we have N i t q, i Z. Secondly, for non-negative integers j and j 2, Pr[η q,k+ = τ j+j 2+ η q,k = τ j ] = p p j2. This holds since for the given event to hold, the counter must not be updated at rounds τ j+, τ j+2,..., τ j+j 2, each of which happens with probability p, and must be updated at round τ j+j 2+ which happens with probability p. k=

13 Alihan Hüyük, Cem Tekin Therefore, we have E η q,k+ t=η q,k + = = = j =0 I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt} Pr[η q,k = τ j ] Pr[η q,k+ = τ j+j 2+ η q,k = τ j ] j +j 2 j =0 j=j E τ j+ t=τ j+ j 2=0 Pr[η q,k = τ j ] j =0 I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt} η q,k τ j < η q+,k j 2=0 Pr[η q,k = τ j ] Pr[η q,k = τ j ] p j =0 i Z = p i Z B q j +j 2 p p j2 j=j B q i Z p j 2 + p j2 j 2=0 i Z B q B q 25 where 25 holds due to our observations and 0 in Fact 3. Finally, we have E[I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt}] q=0 q=0 = Z p Z k=0 Z k=0 E p η q,k+ t=η q,k + B q i Z B q q=0 i Z 3α 2 Z p 2 2 Z +3 log Z ε 2 ε 2 Z +2 I{E Z, θt, E Z,2 θt} 26 where 26 holds due to in Fact 3.