Lean gate passed before this site build; local proof declarations are shown as compiled.Lean-verified build · exact declarations linked.
Part IV — Lower Bounds for Bandits with Finitely Many Arms
Chapter 17: High-Probability Lower Bounds
All Chapter 17 body endpoints pass the full Lean/Tests/harness gate, including same-policy hard-law coupling and deterministic matrix extraction; integrated into main via PR #101. Approved corrections: Claim 17.6 uses T_i ≤ n/2; Theorem 17.4 uses 0 < δ ≤ 1/32 with c=1/160, C=64 and a strict CDF tail. This is corrected-chapter closure, not a proof of the unchanged printed statements or every optional exercise.
CompiledPrinted pp. 185–190PDF pp. 224–230
Source map
Bandit Algorithms, Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári, Cambridge University Press (2020), DOI 10.1017/9781108571401.
Distinguish deterministic expected regret, stochastic random pseudo-regret, and adversarial random regret.
Preserve each probability direction, confidence quantifier, logarithm, square root, and constant in Theorem 17.1 and Corollaries 17.2–17.3.
Understand why Theorem 17.4 first randomizes a bounded reward matrix and then extracts one deterministic matrix with Claim 17.5.
Track the shared Gaussian noise, clipping count, pull-small event, and pathwise regret comparison without inventing independence across arms.
Necessary definitions and statements
Stochastic random pseudo-regret
Compiled
Stochastic random pseudo-regret.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: Random pseudo-regret is the sum of each gap times its random pull count.\[\bar R_n=\sum_{i=1}^k T_i(n)\Delta_i.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Theorem 17.1 threshold
Compiled
Theorem 17.1 threshold.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: One quarter multiplies the minimum of the horizon and the confidence-dependent expected-regret tradeoff.\[b_{17.1}=\frac14\min\left\{n,\frac1B\sqrt{(k-1)n}\log\frac1{4\delta}\right\}.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Corollary 17.2 threshold
Compiled
Corollary 17.2 threshold.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: The minimax stochastic threshold keeps one half inside the square root and one quarter outside the whole minimum.\[b_{17.2}=\frac14\min\left\{n,\sqrt{\frac{n(k-1)}2\log\frac1{4\delta}}\right\}.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Theorem 17.4 adversarial threshold
Compiled
Theorem 17.4 adversarial threshold.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: The adversarial random-regret obstruction scales as a universal constant times the square root of horizon, arms, and the log confidence penalty.\[b_{17.4}=c\sqrt{nk\log\frac1{2\delta}}.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Claim 17.5 first-moment witness
Compiled
Claim 17.5 first-moment witness.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: If the average tail probability over random reward matrices is at least delta, at least one deterministic matrix has tail probability at least delta.\[\mathbb E_Q[1-F_X(u)]\ge\delta\;\Longrightarrow\;\exists x:\;1-F_x(u)\ge\delta.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Equation (17.8) regret bridge
Compiled
Equation (17.8) regret bridge.Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: Random regret is at least the gap times the rounds that neither pull the hard arm nor hit a clipping boundary.\[\widehat R_n\ge\Delta\left(n-T_i(n)-\sum_{t=1}^n\mathbf 1\{\exists j:\,X_{tj}\in\{0,1\}\}\right).\]Swipe to read the full formula →
proof pseudocode
Source-faithful stochastic and adversarial routes
01
Stochastic: select the least-pulled alternative arm
Use the uniform expected-regret envelope to control one arm among i>1, then raise only its Gaussian mean by 2Δ.
02
Stochastic: compare the two history laws
Apply Bretagnolle–Huber with the compiled original-to-alternative history KL identity under the same randomized policy; this tail-event consumer now compiles in Theorem 17.1.
03
Stochastic: calibrate Δ and preserve the tail event
Choose the exact minimum in the source and keep the outer quarter, log(1/(4δ)), and probability at least δ.
04
Adversarial: sample a correlated clipped-normal reward matrix
Share one Gaussian noise variable across arms at each round, while keeping each arm IID across time; do not assume within-round independence.
05
Adversarial: combine pull and clipping events
Claim 17.6 supplies probability 2δ, Claim 17.7 removes at most δ, and Eq. (17.8) leaves regret at least nΔ/4.
06
Adversarial: extract a deterministic witness
Apply the compiled Claim 17.5 first-moment theorem to obtain one reward matrix x with the desired random-regret tail.
A policy whose expected regret is uniformly at most B times the square root of (k−1)n over the Gaussian class must have, on some instance, random pseudo-regret above the exact confidence threshold with probability at least delta.
Theorem 17.1 (stochastic high-probability lower bound).Formula renderer unavailable; readable fallback: The uniform expected-regret premise forces an exact random-pseudo-regret tail obstruction on some unit-Gaussian instance.\[\sup_{\nu\in\mathcal E^k}R_n(\pi,\nu)\le B\sqrt{(k-1)n}\;\Longrightarrow\;\exists\nu\in\mathcal E^k:\;\mathbb P_\nu^\pi\!\left(\bar R_n\ge\frac14\min\left\{n,\frac1B\sqrt{(k-1)n}\log\frac1{4\delta}\right\}\right)\ge\delta.\]Swipe to read the full formula →
Lean boundary. The theorem's premise is quantified over the full gap-at-most-one Gaussian source class; its witness comes from the embedded unit-cube subfamily. The proof preserves the same randomized policy, original-to-alternative history KL, and original-law expected pulls. The corrected adversarial terminal separately passes focused compilation; full local gates pass.
Lean correspondence
Only declarations that exist in the current index and pass the verified build may render as compiled.
Start with the chapter opening and keep random regret separate from expected regret.
Read §17.1's definition of random pseudo-regret, then verify Theorem 17.1's uniform premise, outer quarter, and original-to-alternative history comparison.
Read Corollaries 17.2 and 17.3 with their exact horizon-confidence and one-policy/all-confidence quantifiers.
In §17.2, trace the random reward-matrix law, conditional policy interaction, Claim 17.5, and the shared-noise clipped-normal construction.
Finish with Claims 17.6–17.7 and Eq. (17.8), treating the compiled probability and algebra leaves as dependencies rather than terminal proofs.