Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Deep Bayesian Bandits Showdown: An Empirical Comparison of Bayesian Deep Networks for Thompson Sampling

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1802.09127 v1 pith:WJWSWF5M submitted 2018-02-26 stat.ML cs.LG

Deep Bayesian Bandits Showdown: An Empirical Comparison of Bayesian Deep Networks for Thompson Sampling

classification stat.ML cs.LG
keywords samplingthompsonapproximatebayesianposteriordeeplearningmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in deep reinforcement learning have made significant strides in performance on applications such as Go and Atari games. However, developing practical methods to balance exploration and exploitation in complex domains remains largely unsolved. Thompson Sampling and its extension to reinforcement learning provide an elegant approach to exploration that only requires access to posterior samples of the model. At the same time, advances in approximate Bayesian methods have made posterior approximation for flexible neural network models practical. Thus, it is attractive to consider approximate Bayesian neural networks in a Thompson Sampling framework. To understand the impact of using an approximate posterior on Thompson Sampling, we benchmark well-established and recently developed methods for approximate posterior sampling combined with Thompson Sampling over a series of contextual bandit problems. We found that many approaches that have been successful in the supervised learning setting underperformed in the sequential decision-making scenario. In particular, we highlight the challenge of adapting slowly converging uncertainty estimates to the online setting.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MASS-DPO: Multi-negative Active Sample Selection for Direct Policy Optimization

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MASS-DPO derives a Plackett-Luce-specific log-determinant Fisher information objective to select non-redundant negative samples, matching or exceeding multi-negative DPO performance with substantially fewer negatives ...

  2. Diffusion Policy with Bayesian Expert Selection for Active Multi-Target Tracking

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A Bayesian expert selection framework with variational Bayesian last layers and lower confidence bounds improves diffusion policies for active multi-target tracking.

  3. Neural Exploitation and Exploration of Contextual Bandits

    cs.LG 2023-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    EE-Net is a contextual bandit algorithm that pairs an exploitation neural net with a separate exploration neural net and proves an instance-dependent Õ(√T) regret bound while beating linear and neural baselines on real data.

  4. Variational Proximal Policy Optimization

    stat.ML 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    VP2O maps PPO to SVGD in a MoE architecture using functional kernels and expert orthogonalization, claiming +179 ELO on Codeforces and 32% token reduction on AIME for a 33B/4B model.

  5. Exploring the Potential of Bilevel Optimization for Calibrating Neural Networks

    cs.LG 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bilevel optimization is applied to neural network training to produce self-calibrated confidence scores, reducing calibration error versus isotonic regression on toy and simulated BAC datasets while preserving accuracy.

  6. 'In-Between' Uncertainty in Bayesian Neural Networks

    stat.ML 2019-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    MFVI in BNNs underestimates uncertainty between data regions, leading to overconfident OOD predictions, while linearised Laplace approximation performs better.