Thompson sampling is a widely used strategy for sequential decision-making under uncertainty, offering a principled way to balance exploration and exploitation. This strategy involves maximizing a target objective under a single sample drawn from the current belief over unknown quantities. Conventionally, this optimization is performed once the belief has been inferred from data, and it becomes computationally burdensome when many Thompson samples are required, especially in continuous action spaces. In this work, we introduce an approach that amortizes this process ahead of time, before any data is collected, so that an approximation of the full Thompson sampling distribution is available immediately once observations arrive. We employ this approach to solve the multi-round setting, involving sequential data acquisition and Thompson-sample recommendation across rounds. Beyond accelerating Thompson sampling, our approach enables efficient estimation of expected information gain about the optimal action. This can be used to select more informative Thompson samples or to obtain maximally informative designs with optimization. Combining this estimate of expected information gain with immediate regret supports information-directed sampling (IDS), which can outperform Thompson sampling by explicitly balancing these two quantities. We demonstrate our approach on two simulator-based design problems in synthetic biology, where the simulators have intractable likelihoods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We model foreign gene insertion. The excessive gene induction (designable parameter) can lead to an overworked host. This can decrease the expression of the gene and slow down its growth. The model can be used to predict the behaviour of the system but a lack of knowledge results in uncertainty.
Figure 2: Left: Regret for each step for 1000 rollouts each for different sample of θ∼p(θ) . Right: Thompson sample distributions for example context hexample=(0.61,1.95) using both methods.
Figure 3: Selection objectives for example history context hexample=(0.61,1.95) .
Figure 4: Comparison of action-selection strategies. Final denotes the last step, at which the immediate regret strategy was always used.
Approach
Criterion
Final
Cumulative
Selection
Immediate regret
0.105±0.007
0.955±0.050
One-step lookahead
0.014±0.001
3.098±0.046
Information gain
0.013±0.001
3.122±0.046
IDS
0.012±0.001
0.879±0.035
Optimization
Immediate regret
0.111±0.009
0.969±0.049
One-step lookahead
0.007±0.001
6.086±0.089
Table 1: Monte Carlo estimates of expected final and cumulative regret, reported as mean ± standard error (SEM). Actions a1 – a3 are chosen using the specified strategy; the final action is selected by minimising expected immediate regret. Italics identify the best-performing methods within each selection group (Selection or Optimization), and bold identifies the best-performing methods overall. Highlighted methods include the lowest-mean method and those not significantly different from it under paired t -tests with Holm correction ( α=0.05 ).
Figure 5: Cumulative regret for 1000 rollouts for GFP case study. The shading indicates standard deviation rescaled by 51 to aid presentation.
Figure 6: Insertion of three repressing genes (i.e. the repressilator ) is modelled. Under suitable conditions this results in oscillatory expression. The model not only has uncertain parameters; even with fixed parameters returns highly stochastic prediction of the outcome due to the molecular noise.
Figure 7: Monte Carlo estimate of the regret across stages for unfiltered Thompson sampling in the repressilator case study.
Figure 8: Regret for each acquisition strategy: final regret (left) and cumulative regret (right).
Criterion
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Final
Cumulative
Thompson sampling
0.685±0.077
0.177±0.038
0.181±0.038
0.078±0.024
1.112±0.072
Immediate regret
0.479±0.079
0.172±0.030
0.103±0.026
0.079±0.023
0.854±0.075
Information gain
0.716±0.074
0.639±0.072
0.552±0.081
0.051±0.018
2.048±0.081
IDS
0.434±0.067
0.151±0.026
0.134±0.031
0.090±0.025
0.833±0.075
Table 2: Estimated regret for the repressilator case study, reported as mean ± standard error. The specified strategy is used in Steps 1–3; the final action (Step 4) is selected by minimising expected immediate regret for all strategies.
Approach
Criterion
Final regret
Selection
Immediate regret
0.1697±0.0317
Information gain
0.1052±0.0236
IDS
0.1767±0.0536
Optimization
Immediate regret
0.1445±0.0311
Information gain
0.1179±0.0257
IDS
0.1600±0.0283
Table 3: Two-step case study: each strategy selects the first action, followed by an exploitative final action. Final regret is reported as mean ± SEM.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Step
Criterion
Mean ± SEM
Median
a2 (selection on)
Information gain
1.190±0.041
0.685
One-step lookahead
1.094±0.018
1.155
IDS
0.646±0.020
0.527
Immediate regret
0.540±0.029
0.222
vanilla
0.676±0.031
0.281
a3 (selection off)
Information gain
0.091±0.008
0.011
Appendix
Table A1: Regret by step and strategy (mean ± SEM and median) for example context.
Figure A1: Plot presenting the results in Table A1 .
Step
Mean ± SEM
Median
First action (prior optimization)
0.651±0.028
0.416
2nd (posterior flow)
0.211±0.016
0.090
2nd (action flow)
0.259±0.018
0.122
3rd (posterior flow)
0.108±0.013
0.055
3rd (action flow)
0.136±0.014
0.061
4th (posterior flow)
0.101±0.012
0.060
Appendix
Table A3: Estimated (MC) expected regret across four stages, with standard error of the mean (SEM) and median regret.
Langevin-based Thompson Sampling (TS) methods for multi-armed bandits use likelihood gradients to approximate posterior samples when exact sampling is intractable. As new rewards arrive, the posterior changes, and these methods run an inner Markov chain to approximate the updated target. To simplify this repeated sampling procedure, we introduce TS-SA, which incorporates stochastic approximation (SA) within the TS framework. In each round, TS-SA takes one Langevin step using the newly observed reward and applies an SA update to combine the noisy proposal with the current parameter estimate. By retaining this estimate across rounds, TS-SA maintains one continuing Markov chain for each arm, preserving the influence of past observations without storing or sampling them again. Within this recursion, the proposal step size remains fixed across rounds, while the SA weights decrease as observations accumulate to control the effect of noise on the estimate. This continuing-chain formulation simplifies the theoretical analysis, allowing us to establish a near-optimal worst-case regret bound of O(KT) under log-concavity and smoothness assumptions with one update per new reward. Our experiments further demonstrate that TS-SA, using a single-step Langevin update after an initial warm-up, achieves strong performance against standard baselines.
Weixin Wang, Haoyang Zheng, Guang Lin +2
Duke University · Purdue University · Morgan Stanley
Decision-making from offline datasets typically warm-starts a policy or score model from fixed offline data and then refines it with limited online interaction. Offline data reduces uncertainty, but it does not remove the need for exploration; it changes what remains to be explored. We formalise this residual uncertainty by the conditional mutual information I(χ;τ1:T∣DN) between a learning target χ and the online trajectories after conditioning on the offline dataset. This view leads naturally to information-directed sampling (IDS), a family parameterised by η≥0 that selects actions by trading off instantaneous regret against information gain. We prove a generic offline-to-online Bayesian regret bound for IDS through a ratio certificate: any information-ratio bound satisfied by a reference Thompson-sampling policy over the same randomised policy class is inherited by IDS. In a known-dynamics Bayesian linear-reward model, the conditional mutual information has a log-determinant form, and vanilla IDS (η=0) satisfies O(Hdmin{T,TCβ,IDS0†(N,T)/N}), where the coverage coefficient is tied to the visitation distribution induced by vanilla IDS itself. We also identify a warm-start regime with a dominated but informative probe in which vanilla IDS selects the probe while Thompson sampling never does, giving a constant-factor Bayesian regret separation. Controlled bandit experiments and D4RL offline-to-online RL experiments validate this mechanism: IDS is most beneficial when offline data is informative but leaves biased or low-probability residual uncertainty that targeted online actions can resolve, a regime shared by offline RL, offline black-box optimization, and Bayesian optimization.
Keru Chen
School of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University
Exploration--exploitation is a central trade-off in bandit learning. While classical algorithms such as upper confidence bound methods and Thompson Sampling effectively balance this trade-off in stationary environments, their exploration strategies mainly reduce uncertainty about the current optimal arm, which can be insufficient in nonstationary settings where future optimal arms may differ substantially from current ones. In this paper, we propose Future Information-Directed Sampling (FIDS), a new algorithm for Bayesian nonstationary bandits that explicitly explores to gather information about future optimal arms. We show that FIDS achieves regret comparable to Thompson Sampling up to a small constant factor, while being able to exploit predictive information structures that conventional exploration objectives fail to capture. To address the practical difficulty of posterior inference, we further propose a supervised-learning-based approximation framework that learns the FIDS policy from offline data, and demonstrate its effectiveness on synthetic benchmarks.
Yichen Song, Alessio Russo, Aldo Pacchiano
Boston University · Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard