Papers › Lenient Regret and Good-Action Identification in Gaussian Process Bandits

Lenient Regret and Good-Action Identification in Gaussian Process Bandits

11 Feb 2021arXiv:2102.05793archive 2025-07-28

Xu Cai, Selwyn Gomes, Jonathan Scarlett

In this paper, we study the problem of Gaussian process (GP) bandits under relaxed optimization criteria stating that any function value above a certain threshold is "good enough". On the theoretical side, we study various {\em lenient regret} notions in which all near-optimal actions incur zero penalty, and provide upper bounds on the lenient regret for GP-UCB and an elimination algorithm, circumventing the usual O(√(T)) term (with time horizon T) resulting from zooming extremely close towards the function maximum. In addition, we complement these upper bounds with algorithm-independent lower bounds. On the practical side, we consider the problem of finding a single "good action" according to a known pre-specified threshold, and introduce several good-action identification algorithms that exploit knowledge of the threshold. We experimentally find that such algorithms can often find a good action faster than standard optimization-based approaches.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.

Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

caitree/GoodAction officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Gaussian Process

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections