Paper detail

The Survival Bandit Problem

We introduce and study a new variant of the multi-armed bandit problem (MAB), called the survival bandit problem (S-MAB). While in both problems, the objective is to maximize the so-called cumulative reward, in this new variant, the procedure is interrupted if the cumulative reward falls below a preset threshold. This simple yet unexplored extension of the MAB follows from many practical applications. For example, when testing two medicines against each other on voluntary patients, people's health are at stake, and it is necessary to be able to interrupt experiments if serious side effects occur or if the disease syndromes are not dissipated by the treatment. From a theoretical perspective, the S-MAB is the first variant of the MAB where the procedure may or may not be interrupted. We start by formalizing the S-MAB and we define its objective as the minimization of the so-called survival regret, which naturally generalizes the regret of the MAB. Then, we show that the objective of the S-MAB is considerably more difficult than the MAB, in the sense that contrary to the MAB, no policy can achieve a reasonably small (i.e., sublinear) survival regret. Instead, we minimize the survival regret in the sense of Pareto, i.e., we seek a policy whose cumulative reward cannot be improved for some problem instance without being sacrificed for another one. For that purpose, we identify two key components in the survival regret: the regret given no ruin (which corresponds to the regret in the MAB), and the probability that the procedure is interrupted, called the probability of ruin. We derive a lower bound on the probability of ruin, as well as policies whose probability of ruin matches the lower bound. Finally, based on a doubling trick on those policies, we derive a policy which minimizes the survival regret in the sense of Pareto, giving an answer to an open problem by Perotto et al. (COLT 2019).

preprint2024arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.