Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour

Linear Bandits under Exact Sliding-Window Constraints

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLby Seyed Mohammad Hadi Hosseini ()1 min read2 · 1 read
AI summary · grok-4.7Summaries by Vani AI

A rare-switching bandit algorithm keeps exact sliding-window feasibility with near-optimal regret.

The paper studies linear bandits where every consecutive window of actions must lie in a prescribed feasible set. Offline, convexity and cyclic-shift invariance make a stationary solution optimal when the window divides the horizon, and within an additive O(w) gap otherwise. Online, geometric structure alone does not guarantee learning; the authors define a transition diameter and a rare-switching OFUL algorithm with regret on the order of d times square-root of T plus terms in the diameter and window. For general non-stationary constraints they obtain a similar bound using a history-state diameter, and report exact feasibility with fewer policy updates on real and synthetic benchmarks.

Key facts
  • Every consecutive block of actions must stay inside a prescribed feasible set.
  • Stationary solutions are optimal offline when the window divides the horizon.
  • A transition diameter captures when sublinear regret is possible online.
  • Rare-switching OFUL achieves regret scaling with dimension, diameter, and window size.
Explain this AI news with Vani AIWhat was announced, what is new and why it matters, in a new chat

From the original article

1 min read at arxiv.org

We study linear bandits under exact sliding-window constraints, where every consecutive block of actions must belong to a prescribed feasible set. In the offline setting, where the reward function is known, we show that convexity and cyclic-shift invariance make a stationary solution optimal when $w\mid T$ and within an additive $O(w)$ gap otherwise.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

By Seyed Mohammad Hadi Hosseini · arxiv.org

Read the full article at arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.