A Contextual Bandit Bake-off

Contextual bandit algorithms are essential for solving many real-world interactive machine learning problems. Despite multiple recent successes on statistically and computationally efficient methods, the practical behavior of these algorithms is still poorly understood. We leverage the availability of large numbers of supervised learning datasets to empirically evaluate contextual bandit algorithms, focusing on practical methods that learn by relying on optimization oracles from supervised learning. We find that a recent method (Foster et al., 2018) using optimism under uncertainty works the best overall. A surprisingly close second is a simple greedy baseline that only explores implicitly through the diversity of contexts, followed by a variant of Online Cover (Agarwal et al., 2014) which tends to be more conservative but robust to problem specification by design. Along the way, we also evaluate various components of contextual bandit algorithm design such as loss estimators. Overall, this is a thorough study and review of contextual bandit methodology

In All Likelihood, Deep Belief Is Not Enough

Statistical models of natural stimuli provide an important tool for researchers in the fields of machine learning and computational neuroscience. A canonical way to quantitatively assess and compare the performance of statistical models is given by the likelihood. One class of statistical models which has recently gained increasing popularity and has been applied to a variety of complex data are deep belief networks. Analyses of these models, however, have been typically limited to qualitative analyses based on samples due to the computationally intractable nature of the model likelihood. Motivated by these circumstances, the present article provides a consistent estimator for the likelihood that is both computationally tractable and simple to apply in practice. Using this estimator, a deep belief network which has been suggested for the modeling of natural image patches is quantitatively investigated and compared to other models of natural image patches. Contrary to earlier claims based on qualitative results, the results presented in this article provide evidence that the model under investigation is not a particularly good model for natural image