Imitation-Regularized Offline Learning
This work addresses a practical limitation in automated decision systems for applications like recommendation or advertising, though it is incremental as it builds on prior methods like IPWE and cross-entropy loss.
The paper tackles the problem of offline learning in contextual bandits when logged action probabilities are missing or unreliable, by proposing a method that combines policy improvement objectives with policy imitation regularization. It shows improved performance over existing approaches through simulations on datasets like Criteo, with concrete gains in accuracy and variance reduction.
We study the problem of offline learning in automated decision systems under the contextual bandits model. We are given logged historical data consisting of contexts, (randomized) actions, and (nonnegative) rewards. A common goal is to evaluate what would happen if different actions were taken in the same contexts, so as to optimize the action policies accordingly. The typical approach to this problem, inverse probability weighted estimation (IPWE) [Bottou et al., 2013], requires logged action probabilities, which may be missing in practice due to engineering complications. Even when available, small action probabilities cause large uncertainty in IPWE, rendering the corresponding results insignificant. To solve both problems, we show how one can use policy improvement (PIL) objectives, regularized by policy imitation (IML). We motivate and analyze PIL as an extension to Clipped-IPWE, by showing that both are lower-bound surrogates to the vanilla IPWE. We also formally connect IML to IPWE variance estimation [Swaminathan and Joachims 2015] and natural policy gradients. Without probability logging, our PIL-IML interpretations justify and improve, by reward-weighting, the state-of-art cross-entropy (CE) loss that predicts the action items among all action candidates available in the same contexts. With probability logging, our main theoretical contribution connects IML-underfitting to the existence of either confounding variables or model misspecification. We show the value and accuracy of our insights by simulations based on Simpson's paradox, standard UCI multiclass-to-bandit conversions and on the Criteo counterfactual analysis challenge dataset.