Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

This paper studies the trade-off between two different kinds of pure exploration: breadth versus depth. We focus on the most biased coin problem, asking how many total coin flips are required to identify a "heavy" coin from an infinite bag containing both "heavy" coins with mean

This paper studies the trade-off between two different kinds of pure exploration: breadth versus depth. We focus on the most biased coin problem, asking how many total coin flips are required to identify a ``heavy'' coin from an infinite bag containing both ``heavy'' coins with mean $\theta_1 \in (0,1)$, and ``light" coins with mean $\theta_0 \in (0,\theta_1)$, where heavy coins are drawn from the bag with proportion $\alpha \in (0,1/2)$. When $\alpha,\theta_0,\theta_1$ are unknown, the key difficulty of this problem lies in distinguishing whether the two kinds of coins have very similar means, or whether heavy coins are just extremely rare. While existing solutions to this problem require some prior knowledge of the parameters $\theta_0,\theta_1,\alpha$, we propose an adaptive algorithm that requires no such knowledge yet still obtains near-optimal sample complexity guarantees. In contrast, we provide a lower bound showing that non-adaptive strategies require at least quadratically more samples. In characterizing this gap between adaptive and nonadaptive strategies, we make connections to anomaly detection and prove lower bounds on the sample complexity of differentiating between a single parametric distribution and a mixture of two such distributions.

Classical learning assumes the learner is given a labeled data sample, from which it learns a model. The field of Active Learning deals with the situation where the learner begins not with a training sample, but instead with resources that it can use to obtain information to help identify the optimal model. To better understand this task, this paper presents and analyses the simplified "(budgeted) active model selection" version, which captures the pure exploration aspect of many active learning problems in a clean and simple problem formulation. Here the learner can use a fixed budget of "model probes" (where each probe evaluates the specified model on a random indistinguishable instance) to identify which of a given set of possible models has the highest expected accuracy. Our goal is a policy that sequentially determines which model to probe next, based on the information observed so far. We present a formal description of this task, and show that it is NPhard in general. We then investigate a number of algorithms for this task, including several existing ones (eg, "Round-Robin", "Interval Estimation", "Gittins") as well as some novel ones (e.g., "Biased-Robin"), describing first their approximation properties and then their empirical performance on various problem instances. We observe empirically that the simple biased-robin algorithm significantly outperforms the other algorithms in the case of identical costs and priors.