At each instant of time we are required to sample a fixed number <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">m ≥ 1</tex> out of <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">N</tex> Markov chains whose stationary transition probability matrices belong to a family suitably parameterized by a real number <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">θ</tex> . The objective is to maximize the long run expected value of the samples. The learning loss of a sampling scheme corresponding to a parameters configuration <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">C = (θ₁, ..., θN)</tex> is quantified by the regret <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Rₙ(C)</tex> . This is the difference between the maximum expected reward that could be achieved if <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">C</tex> were known and the expected reward actually achieved. We provide a lower bound for the regret associated with any uniformly good scheme, and construct a sampling scheme which attains the lower bound for every <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">C</tex> . The lower bound is given explicitly in terms of the Kullback-Liebler number between pairs of transition probabilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anantharam et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: