Halve-Then-Greedy: Adaptive Sampling for Posterior Success with Near-Optimal Instance Dependence

In the best-arm identification problem, an algorithm adaptively selects arms to find the arm of the largest mean reward. Successive Rejects (SR) is a simple fixed-budget best-arm identification algorithm that eliminates one candidate arm at each phase. At first glance, SR seems to have limited adaptivity, since it follows predetermined phase lengths. However, for Gaussian arms with common variance, SR's worst-instance error exponent normalized by the popular complexity measure $H_1(P)$ is optimal up to a constant factor, which partly explains why SR's performance is competitive compared with state-of-the-art adaptive sampling algorithms. In this paper, we extend the framework of SR by optimizing its predefined schedule of phase lengths. We formulate phase-schedule design as an optimization problem for the normalized error exponent. Then, we introduce a version of SR with the optimized schedule, which we call $H_1$-balanced Successive Rejects ($H_1$-SR). This schedule is optimal within the class of SR-type algorithms with deterministic equal-count schedules. For Gaussian arms with common variance, $H_1$-SR achieves at least $11/12$ of the optimal normalized rate over all adaptive algorithms for every $K\ge2$, and this approximation ratio converges to one as $1-O(1/\log K)$ as $K\to\infty$. This is a significant improvement over original SR, whose corresponding fraction of the optimal normalized rate converges to $1/4$. Finally, experiments on ten synthetic instances and two dataset-derived Gaussian benchmarks compare the optimized schedule with original SR at finite horizons. They show substantial gains on many instances while also exposing a regime in which more aggressive early elimination is costly.

Thompson sampling (TS) is one of the most popular and earliest algorithms to solve stochastic multi-armed bandit problems. We consider a variant of TS, named $α$-TS, where we use a fractional or $α$-posterior ($α\in(0,1)$) instead of the standard posterior distribution. To compute an $α$-posterior, the likelihood in the definition of the standard posterior is tempered with a factor $α$. For $α$-TS we obtain both instance-dependent $\mathcal{O}\left(\sum_{k \neq i^*} Δ_k\left(\frac{\log(T)}{C(α)Δ_k^2} + \frac{1}{2} \right)\right)$ and instance-independent $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{KT\log K})$ frequentist regret bounds under very mild conditions on the prior and reward distributions, where $Δ_k$ is the gap between the true mean rewards of the $k^{th}$ and the best arms, and $C(α)$ is a known constant. Both the sub-Gaussian and exponential family models satisfy our general conditions on the reward distribution. Our conditions on the prior distribution can be easily satisfied by a density that is positive, continuous, and bounded. We also establish another instance-dependent regret upper bound that matches (up to constants) to that of improved UCB [Auer and Ortner, 2010]. Our regret analysis carefully adapts and combines recent theoretical developments in the non-asymptotic concentration analysis and Bernstein-von Mises type results for the $α$-posterior distribution. Moreover, our analysis does not require additional structural properties such as closed-form posteriors or conjugate priors.

Bandit algorithms generate data for downstream inference, but adaptive sampling biases post-bandit sample means. We analyze this bias for stable index algorithms, including UCB1 and its generalizations, and derive sharp leading-order expressions for the sample-mean bias and expected $Z$-statistic, in bandit experiments of fixed horizon $T$. Our characterization reveals the algorithmic origin of bias through a key index-function-dependent quantity, which we term effective exploration rate. For example, under UCB1, the effective exploration rate is of order $\sqrt{\log T}$, and the standardized bias of any arm (that is not uniquely optimal) decays at the extremely slow rate $1/\sqrt{\log T}$. We also show how the choice of the index function affects both regret and bias, which reveals a regret-bias trade-off: more exploratory algorithm reduces bias but increases regret. We further show how bias most severely distorts confidence intervals and hypothesis tests when the tested arm is one of the tied-optimal arms. Our sharp characterization for bias uses a novel empirical fluid approximation of the algorithm's sampling dynamics, which may be of independent interest.