Source-linked AI summary

On the Complexity of Preference-Based Bandits

Ahmed Ben Yahmed, Marc Abeille, Clément Calauzènes

arXiv:2609.39351v1cs.AIcs.LG

TL;DR

Preference-bandit research has often focused on linear or kernelized reward models, while the logistic feedback model can bring a prohibitively large problem-dependent κ. This paper introduces a locally sensitive eluder dimension and GINOP for general reward classes, and reports a first-order guarantee showing preference learning can be as statistically efficient as direct reward observation. Computational efficiency for general function classes and analysis beyond Bradley–Terry remain open directions.

  • Problem

    Preference-bandit work commonly uses linear or RKHS reward models, while extending sharp guarantees to general reward classes must address the potentially prohibitively large logistic constant κ.

    Source: §1 · p. 1, §2 · p. 2
  • Method

    The paper introduces a locally sensitive eluder dimension for logistic preference feedback and GINOP, which builds confidence sets and selects informative arm pairs using optimistic exploration.

    Source: §5 · pp. 6–7
  • Results

    GINOP’s first-order regret guarantee shows that learning from preference feedback can be as statistically efficient as learning from direct reward observations.

    Source: §5 · p. 6, Conclusion and Future Work · p. 9
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    For general reward classes under the Bradley–Terry model, logistic nonlinearity does not adversely impact the regret guarantee’s leading-order term.

    Source: §5 · p. 6, Conclusion and Future Work · p. 9

    Computational efficiency for general function classes remains unresolved, and extending the analysis beyond the Bradley–Terry observation model is future work.

    Source: Conclusion and Future Work · pp. 9–10

Abstract

from arXiv · show

We study preference-based bandits with general reward function classes, where a learner sequentially selects pairs of arms and observes binary preference feedback governed by the Bradley--Terry model. This setting naturally arises in applications such as recommender systems, tournament ranking, and learning from human feedback, where relative preferences are easier to elicit than absolute rewards. The observation model inherits the logistic bandit challenge of handling the problem-dependent constant $\kappa$, which accounts for the non-linearity of the link function and can grow arbitrarily large. Moreover, prior work has predominantly focused on linear or kernelized reward models, precluding the use of richer function classes. To address these limitations, we consider general reward function classes and introduce the \emph{locally sensitive eluder dimension}, a novel complexity measure tailored to the logistic structure of preference feedback that yields fine-grained regret guarantees without unfavorable dependence on $\kappa$. Building on this notion, we propose \textbf{GINOP} (Generic INformative OPtimism), an algorithm that constructs log-loss confidence sets and jointly selects arm pairs to balance optimism and informative exploration. We establish a first-order regret bound that, in contrast with what previous results suggest, demonstrates that learning with preference feedback is as statistically efficient as learning from direct reward observation. Finally, we corroborate our theoretical findings with empirical evaluations against competitive baselines.

1 Introduction

Preference-based bandits learn from noisy pairwise choices, which are useful when relative judgments are easier to elicit than absolute rewards. This paper considers richer reward-function classes than the linear and kernelized models commonly used for large decision spaces.

1 Introduction

  • Learners compare pairs of arms and receive binary preference feedback, a natural fit for recommendation, ranking, and other settings where relative judgments are easier to obtain.The passage also identifies fine-tuning language models and comparative evaluations such as choosing between restaurants or movies.Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Prior work commonly models rewards with linear functions or functions in an RKHS, but these parameterizations may be too restrictive for complex utilities.The paper instead considers a rich, generic reward-function class learned from pairwise preferences.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2

2 Setting

The setting pairs arms and observes binary preferences rather than individual rewards, with the goal of accumulating reward. Bradley–Terry feedback creates a logistic nonlinearity whose problem-dependent constant can be prohibitively large.

2 Setting

  • At each round, the learner chooses two arms and observes which is preferred, rather than observing either arm’s individual reward.The objective is still to accumulate reward over time.Source: §2 · p. 2
  • The model assumes a realizable, bounded reward function: the true conditional mean belongs to the reward class, whose functions take values in [−S, S].The Bradley–Terry model links preferences to the difference between the two arms’ rewards.Source: §2 · p. 2
  • The logistic nonlinearity introduces a problem-dependent κ that can scale approximately as e^(2S), exceeding 2.2 × 10^4 when S = 5.The paper identifies avoiding a detrimental κ dependence in regret guarantees as a design and analysis challenge.Source: §2 · p. 2

3 Related Work and Contributions

Existing preference-bandit work often uses linear or kernelized utilities, while general reward classes raise challenges for concentration and online prediction error. The paper introduces a logistic-structure-aware complexity measure and GINOP, with a first-order regret guarantee and empirical comparisons against baselines.

3 Related Work and Contributions

  • Large-space preference-bandit methods have used linear utilities and kernelized models, while the paper studies more general utility classes.The cited linear approaches include Saha (2021) and Bengs et al. (2022); kernelized logistic methods are also discussed.Source: §3 · pp. 3–4
  • The locally sensitive eluder dimension accounts for logistic nonlinearity and avoids unfavorable κ dependence in the general reward-class setting.This addresses the limitation of eluder dimensions developed for additive-noise models and the κ dependence of global eluder dimension in generalized linear settings.Source: §3 · pp. 3–4
  • GINOP constructs confidence sets from the reward class and jointly selects arm pairs to balance optimistic reward collection with informative comparisons.The algorithm is proposed for general reward-function classes.Source: §3 · p. 4
  • GINOP’s first-order regret guarantee shows that preference feedback can be as statistically efficient as direct reward observations.The bound uses a locally sensitive eluder dimension and log-covering number; its leading term depends on local sigmoid curvature, while κ appears in a lower-order instance-dependent term.Source: §3 · p. 4
  • The paper reports empirical evaluations comparing GINOP with several existing baselines.The supplied passage does not state the comparative outcomes.Source: §3 · p. 4

4 Learning Process

The learning process estimates rewards from pairwise preference history using log-loss rather than least squares. It forms confidence sets whose radius reflects the complexity of the induced excess-loss class, then tracks uncertainty in pairwise performance gaps.

4 Learning Process

  • Because rewards are observed only through preferences, the method uses log-loss rather than standard least-squares estimation.It estimates the true reward function from the preference history by maximum likelihood.Source: §4 · p. 4
  • The method constructs confidence sets of reward functions close to the maximum-likelihood estimate under log-loss.The confidence radius is nondecreasing and reflects the 1/T-covering number of the induced excess-loss class; the stated lemma ensures the sets are valid under the bounded-reward assumption.Source: §4 · p. 5
  • The method measures worst-case uncertainty in the performance gap between two arms across the current confidence set.The paper defines this uncertainty to assess prediction error associated with plausible models.Source: §4 · p. 5

5 Algorithm and Main Results

GINOP jointly selects arm pairs using estimated rewards and an uncertainty bonus, while the locally sensitive eluder dimension captures complexity suited to logistic preference feedback. Its first-order regret bound places local sigmoid curvature and this complexity in the leading term, with κ confined to a lower-order term, and supports statistical efficiency comparable to direct reward observation.

GINOP

  • GINOP computes an MLE and uncertainty measure, then jointly selects both arms by maximizing estimated pair rewards plus a bonus for uncertainty in their reward difference.The bonus is zero for identical arms, discouraging identical-arm duels, particularly early on.Source: §5 · p. 5

Locally sensitive eluder dimension

  • The locally sensitive eluder dimension uses a prediction-error measure tailored to logistic preference feedback, unlike square-loss eluder dimension suited to additive-noise models.Its definition directly accounts for local sensitivity.Source: §5 · p. 6

Theoretical guarantees

  • GINOP's first-order regret bound depends in its leading term on local sigmoid curvature, log-covering number, and locally sensitive eluder dimension, while κ appears only in the lower-order term κΓ_T.The local curvature is evaluated at the optimal arms and is described as well behaved, unlike κ.Source: §5 · p. 6
  • The leading-order result supports the conclusion that preference feedback is as statistically efficient as direct reward observation.The bound's tightness is difficult to assess generally; the paper examines specific reward classes in Section 6.Source: §5 · p. 7

Proof idea

  • The regret analysis bounds accumulated on-policy prediction error using the new eluder dimension and decomposes regret around sigmoid sensitivity at the optimal pair.This prediction-error characterization is identified as a principal theoretical contribution.Source: §5 · p. 7

6 Instantiation to Familiar Utility Classes

The paper specializes its general regret analysis to linear and kernelized reward classes. The linear result is minimax optimal without an additional leading-order dependence on κ, while the kernelized analysis improves on cited bounds for commonly used kernels.

Linear utility

  • At the optimal pair, sigmoid curvature is 1/4, so curvature dependence disappears from the leading term and the guarantee aligns with direct-reward learning.The alignment is stated relative to Russo and Van Roy (2013, Proposition 4 + Example 4).Source: §6 · p. 8
  • For linear utilities, GINOP is minimax optimal and avoids the additional κ dependence in the leading term found in prior bounds.The result matches the lower bound established by Li et al. (2024).Source: §6 · p. 8

Kernelized utility

  • In the kernelized setting, the analysis relates the locally sensitive eluder dimension to maximum information gain over the duel domain.The logarithmic covering number of a bounded RKHS is stated to be asymptotically equivalent to maximum information gain.Source: §6 · pp. 8–9
  • For commonly used kernels, the kernelized results improve on Xu et al. (2024) and Pásztor et al. (2024), including in their dependence on κ.The paper assumes a known RKHS, bounded reward-function norm, and kernel diagonal bounded by 1.Source: §6 · pp. 8–9

7 Experiments

The experiments compare GINOP with baselines in linear, kernelized, and neural settings. GINOP outperforms the existing baselines overall, with kernelized MR-LPF showing comparable regret.

7 Experiments

  • The benchmark reports cumulative regret over 2,000 rounds, averaged over 20 trials with 30 arms, across linear, kernelized, and neural settings.The linear setting uses d = 10; the kernelized setting uses the Ackley reward with a Matérn kernel of ν = 2.5; the neural setting uses a cosine reward.Source: Figure 1 · p. 9, §7 · p. 9
  • GINOP outperforms existing baselines overall, while kernelized MR-LPF achieves a comparable regret profile.The reported comparison highlights MR-LPF as the exception among existing approaches with κ-dependence.Source: §7 · p. 9, Figure 1 · p. 9
  • Except for MR-LPF, existing approaches suffer κ-dependence in both algorithm design and theoretical performance, inflating regret and producing a T-like shape visible at larger horizons.MR-LPF removes κ-dependence through its multi-phase approach in the kernelized setting.Source: §7 · p. 9

Conclusion and Future Work

The paper introduces a locally sensitive eluder dimension and an informed-optimistic exploration scheme for GINOP, with regret guarantees for general reward classes. It concludes that preference feedback can be as statistically efficient as direct rewards, while identifying computational efficiency for general classes and non-Bradley–Terry models as future work.

Conclusion and Future Work

  • GINOP combines a preference-feedback-specific eluder dimension with informed-optimistic exploration to obtain tight regret guarantees for general reward classes.The conclusion says logistic-model nonlinearity does not adversely impact regret in this setting.Source: Conclusion and Future Work · p. 9
  • The paper concludes that learning from preference feedback can be as statistically efficient as learning from direct reward observations.This conclusion is stated for the paper's theoretical results on preference bandits.Source: Conclusion and Future Work · p. 9
  • Computational efficiency for general function classes remains future work, although GINOP matches existing computational complexity in linear and kernelized settings.The design of suitable oracle-based implementations is outside the paper's scope.Source: Conclusion and Future Work · p. 9
  • Extending the analysis beyond the Bradley–Terry observation model is identified as promising future work.The paper's analysis focuses on Bradley–Terry preferences.Source: Conclusion and Future Work · p. 10

A A Closer Look at the Localization Technique of Bakhtiari et al. (2025)

The appendix examines the limitations of global eluder dimension and prior localization, then contrasts that approach with a locally sensitive eluder dimension. It also recalls concentration results used to establish confidence-set validity.

A A Closer Look at the Localization Technique of Bakhtiari et al. (2025)

  • The global eluder dimension necessarily incurs unfavorable κ-dependence; localizing to a subclass can remove it from the leading term but leaves an opaque second-order term.The subclass F′ may be defined only implicitly and be unevaluable for general function classes.Source: A A Closer Look at the Localization… · p. 15
  • The critique says Bakhtiari et al. bound an on-policy quantity rather than the required uniform-over-arms count, which can be linear in T.A logarithmic bound on the on-policy term does not imply a bound on the correct second-order term.Source: A A Closer Look at the Localization… · p. 15
  • The paper introduces a locally sensitive eluder dimension that encodes link-function sensitivity directly instead of relying on an external localization technique.The authors present this as a departure from the localization approach of Bakhtiari et al. (2025).Source: A A Closer Look at the Localization… · p. 15

B.1 Concentrations

  • Lemma 4.1 gives a confidence-set result under Assumption 2.2, and the appendix defines GE as the intersection of good events occurring with probability at least 1 − 2δ.Proposition B.1 is described as a direct adaptation of Proposition 22 in Bakhtiari et al. (2025).Source: §B.1 · pp. 15–16

B.2 Bounding the On-Policy Prediction Error

The appendix connects the on-policy prediction-error proof to the locally sensitive eluder dimension, then uses regret decomposition and a regret-bound theorem. It also develops generalized eluder tools for controlling sequences of informative points.

B.2 Bounding the On-Policy Prediction Error

  • The on-policy prediction-error proof chooses ψ and ϕ so the generalized eluder dimension coincides with the locally sensitive dimension, then applies Lemma D.3.The argument proceeds on the good event GE.Source: §B.2 · pp. 16–17

C.1 Regret Decomposition

  • The round-wise regret proof decomposes instantaneous regret and uses the confidence event and the algorithm’s optimization step.The decomposition is presented in the proof of Lemma 5.1.Source: §C.1 · p. 18

C.2 Regret Bound

  • Theorem 5.1 states a GINOP regret bound under Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2 with ε = 1/T² and δ = 1/T².The supplied theorem passage does not include the bound's expression.Source: §C.2 · p. 18

D On the Eluder Dimension

  • The generalized eluder dimension counts the longest sequence whose points are successively independent: prior points have ψ-values at most ε², while the current point has ϕ-value above ε².The definition and independence condition are given in Appendix D.Source: D On the Eluder Dimension · p. 20

E.1 Linear Utility

The appendix specializes GINOP to linear and kernelized utility models, then analyzes its regret for commonly used kernels. In the linear setting, GINOP jointly selects arm pairs and uses sigmoid curvature in its uncertainty design to avoid an undesirable κ-dependence in the leading regret term.

E.1 Linear Utility

  • In the linear setting, GINOP selects arm pairs jointly and uses a locally adaptive design matrix incorporating sigmoid curvature, avoiding an undesirable κ-dependence in the leading regret term.Earlier methods use two-stage pair-selection rules and uncertainty based on a design matrix of pairwise feature differences.Source: §E.1 · pp. 21–22

E.2 Kernelized Utility

  • The kernelized analysis assumes the unknown utility lies in a known RKHS, with bounded RKHS norm and normalized kernel diagonal.The analysis also constructs a dueling kernel and gives a representer-theorem-based implementation of the estimator and confidence width.Source: §E.2 · pp. 23–24

E.2.1 Specialization to Commonly Used Kernel Functions

  • For bounded RKHSs, the regret analysis combines the general theorem and kernelized complexity bound, using log covering numbers proportional to maximum information gain.The resulting guarantees are specialized to commonly used kernels.Source: §E.2 · p. 24, §E.2.1 · p. 25
  • The kernel specializations include linear, squared-exponential, and Matérn kernels; the stated Matérn analysis assumes smoothness ν > 3d/2.The passage attributes the Matérn smoothness condition to Xu et al. (2024).Source: §E.2.1 · pp. 25–26
  • For commonly used kernels, GINOP is reported to have the correct κ-dependence and improve on the bounds of Xu et al. (2024) and Pásztor et al. (2024).The passage frames this comparison as consistent with Kayal et al. (2025).Source: §E.2.1 · p. 26

F Details of Experiments

This section covers experimental comparisons across linear, kernelized, and neural-network settings, alongside checklist guidance on experimental reporting, research ethics, assets, human subjects, and LLM use.

F Details of Experiments

  • Experiments report cumulative regret over T = 2000 rounds, averaged over 20 independent trials.They compare GINOP against baselines across a range of reward function classes.Source: F Details of Experiments · p. 26
  • GINOP consistently outperforms the linear-setting baselines, whose regret is inflated by adverse κ-dependence and develops a T-like shape only at larger horizons.The comparison uses MaxInP, CoLSTIM, and FGTS.CDB.Source: Figure 2 · p. 26, F Details of Experiments · p. 26
  • In the kernelized Ackley setting, GINOP outperforms POP-BO and MaxMinLCB, while MR-LPF exhibits a comparable regret profile by eliminating κ-dependence through its multi-phase approach.The experiment uses a Matérn kernel with smoothness ν = 2.5 and lengthscale ρ = 0.1.Source: Figure 3 · p. 27, F Details of Experiments · p. 27
  • In the neural-network setting, GINOP outperforms NDB-UCB and NDB-TS, whose regret bounds exhibit adverse dependence on κ.The reward is cos(3⟨x, θ⋆⟩), with d = 10 and 30 randomly drawn arms.Source: Figure 4 · p. 27, F Details of Experiments · p. 27

NeurIPS Paper Checklist

  • Authors are asked to report compute for individual experimental runs and estimate total compute, including whether the full project used more than the reported experiments.Source: NeurIPS Paper Checklist · p. 31
  • The checklist calls for preserving anonymity, including avoiding identifying details about institutional review in initial submissions.Source: NeurIPS Paper Checklist · pp. 32, 34
  • The checklist asks authors to credit existing assets and state their licenses and terms, and to document new assets, including training details, limitations, and consent.Source: NeurIPS Paper Checklist · p. 33
  • For human-subject or crowdsourcing work, the checklist requests participant instructions, screenshots and compensation details, plus risks, disclosure, and applicable IRB approval.It permits placing these details in supplemental material, but says the main paper should include as much detail as possible when human subjects are central to the contribution.Source: NeurIPS Paper Checklist · pp. 33–34
  • LLM use should be disclosed when it is an important, original, or non-standard part of the core method; writing, editing, or formatting alone does not require declaration.Source: NeurIPS Paper Checklist · p. 34
Loading 2609.39351v1…