Are Stochastic Multi-objective Bandits Harder than Single-objective Bandits?
Authors: Changkun Guan, Mengfan Xu
Organizations: H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology · Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Multi-objective bandits have attracted increasing attention for their broad applicability, with d-dimensional reward vectors inducing Pareto regret. There has been a subtle debate over whether this added structure makes the problem fundamentally harder than single-objective bandits. We answer this by showing that, in terms of Pareto regret, it is surprisingly no harder: Pareto regret scales inversely with g†, the largest objective-wise suboptimality gap, and thus matches the smallest objective-wise classical regret. We formalize this idea via a novel method with upper and lower confidence-bound estimators for every arm-objective pair. It uses top-two races to compare arms within each objective and an uncertainty-greedy rule to allocate exploration toward the largest objective-wise gap g†, until the corresponding Pareto-optimal arm is committed to. We prove that it achieves Pareto regret of O(\nicefraclogTg†), where T is the horizon, with \emph{no dependence on d}. A matching lower bound of Ω(\nicefraclogTg†) implies optimality. We evaluate the method on synthetic and real-world datasets, confirming the theory and achieving order-of-magnitude reductions in Pareto regret over baselines. Real-world results further show that our method commits to a Pareto optimal arm, possibly at the cost of empirical fairness, suggesting a potential hardness absent in single-objective bandits.
Figures & tables
Subset type
Method
Pareto regret ↓
Pr(aT∈A⋆)↑
Fairness regret ↓
Spotify d6
Misleading near-front
Width-guided
3.05±1.99
1.000
1.27×105±8.86×104
Misleading near-front
Pareto UCB1
2584.77±60.31
1.000
1.67×105±1.10×104
Misleading near-front
Annealing-Pareto
337.59±1504.82
0.983
1.37×105±2.53×104
Misleading near-front
Scalarized UCB
1435.03±258.58
1.000
1.07×105±2.14×104
Friendly near-front
Width-guided
0.12±0.07
1.000
1.40×105±9.26×104
Table 1: Real-world benchmark on held-out Spotify and KuaiRec subsets at T=106 . Subsets are grouped before policy simulation. The main target is Pareto regret and detection of at least one Pareto-optimal arm; fairness is reported as an empirical measure.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: Synthetic controlled family at T=106 with 20 repetitions. The first panel decreases the Pareto gap δ with one near-front dominated arm; the second increases the number m of near-front dominated arms at fixed δ=0.02 . The first-certification scale g†=0.55 is fixed throughout.
δ
m
CPUCB
Pareto UCB1
Width-guided
Cert. rate
Panel A: vary δ , m=1
0.120
1
21.05
2490.0±46.8
458.5±27.2
100%
0.080
1
21.99
2564.8±70.3
445.6±28.7
100%
0.040
1
24.81
2773.7±97.3
433.2±26.3
100%
0.020
1
30.45
3048.1±104.4
427.4±23.1
100%
0.010
1
41.72
3185.8±146.7
430.6±30.9
100%
Appendix
Table 2: Synthetic family with fixed certification gap and small Pareto gaps at T=106 ; g†=0.55 throughout and δ=ΔminP . Regret entries report mean ± standard deviation over 20 runs.
Figure 2: Synthetic regret and certification trajectories for two representative settings. Width-guided certifies in every run and then stops accumulating Pareto regret, while Pareto UCB1 continues to sample from a broader optimistic front.
Dataset
Validation seed
Test seed
Validation
Test
Selected c
Spotify d6, misleading/friendly
20260604
20260704
3×3
3×20
0.02
Spotify d6, easy
20260604
20260704
3×3
3×20
0.00894
KuaiRec d26, all types
20260604
20260704
3×3
3×20
0.02
Appendix
Table 3: Validation/test split and selected Width-guided coefficient. “Subsets × seeds” is per dataset and subset type. All held-out rows use the same test seed; Spotify easy uses a separately frozen geometry-selected easy suite.
Dataset
Subset type
Method
Front precision ↑
Front recall ↑
Coverage entropy ↑
Spotify d6
Misleading
Width-guided
0.760
0.947
0.001
Spotify d6
Misleading
Pareto UCB1
1.000
1.000
1.000
Spotify d6
Misleading
Annealing-Pareto
0.782
0.840
0.848
Spotify d6
Misleading
Scalarized UCB
1.000
1.000
0.812
Spotify d6
Friendly
Width-guided
0.850
0.921
0.002
Spotify d6
Friendly
Pareto UCB1
0.971
1.000
1.000
Appendix
Table 4: Front-identification and coverage diagnostics on the held-out real-data subsets.
Adversarial multi-objective bandits hold the potential to help us optimize choices (arms) whose reward is a multidimensional vector chosen by an adversary and whose performance is measured by Pareto regret. We define loss as one minus reward and measure the easiness of a coordinate by the smallest cumulative loss of the arms on it, and call the coordinate easier when this quantity is smaller. Existing work suggests that in theory an easier coordinate may reduce Pareto regret. However, in practice, one may not know which coordinate is easier. On the negative side, we show that this lack of information eliminates the possibility: a smaller cumulative loss does not improve the worst-case order of Pareto regret. Precisely, let Ld be the smallest cumulative loss along coordinate d over T rounds. For K≥4 arms, T≥6 rounds, and at least 2 coordinates, we prove that the minimax expected Pareto regret is Ω(min{T−L0,K(T−L0)}). It is monotonically decreasing in L0, even when L0=mindLd itself is known. On the positive side, this result motivates the possibility that other coordinates, not just the easy one, may suffice to attain the optimal rate of Pareto regret. When L0 is known, we apply Poly-INF to a fixed coordinate and obtain an upper bound on Pareto regret that exhibits the same order and thus matches the lower bound. Without such knowledge, we develop a reward-doubling version of Poly-INF that adapts to this unknown quantity while still attaining the matching minimax rate. Another implication is that it has no extra logT factor and is independent of the number of coordinates.
Changkun Guan, Mengfan Xu
H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology · Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst
We consider a stochastic multi-objective bandit problem where, at each round, the agent selects a slate of k arms and observes their d-dimensional reward vectors under semi-bandit feedback. We do not aim at identifying a single optimal arm; instead, we consider the problem of maintaining a small set of actions that jointly approximate the Pareto frontier. We formalize this objective through the dominated hypervolume induced by the selected subset of arms, and define an α-approximate hypervolume regret with respect to the best size-k subset achievable in hindsight, where α=1−1/e reflects the approximation guarantee of greedy maximization for monotone submodular functions. To address this problem, we introduce THV-UCB, an optimistic algorithm that selects arms greedily based on optimistic estimates of their marginal hypervolume contributions. We establish a gap-free regret bound O~(dnkT) that holds on every instance, together with a gap-dependent bound O~(nk2.5/Δmin) that becomes polylogarithmic in T once the arms are sufficiently well separated. Our results provide theoretical support for using small subsets to approximate Pareto fronts in various multi-objective applications.
Nicolas Gutowski, Fabien Chhel, Alexandre Letard +1
Université d’Angers, LERIA, SFR MATHSTIC, Angers, France · ESEO, ERIS, Angers, France · AlphaEdge, Saint-Barthélémy-d’Anjou, France +1
Multi-dueling bandits, where a learner selects m≥2 arms per round and observes only the winner, arise naturally in many applications including ranking and recommendation systems, yet a fundamental question has remained open: can a single algorithm perform optimally in both stochastic and adversarial environments, without knowing which regime it faces? We answer this affirmatively, providing the first best-of-both-worlds algorithms for multi-dueling bandits under both Condorcet and Borda objectives. For the Condorcet setting, we propose MetaDueling, a black-box reduction that converts any dueling bandit algorithm into a multi-dueling bandit algorithm by transforming multi-way winner feedback into an unbiased pairwise signal. Instantiating our reduction with Versatile-DB yields the first best-of-both-worlds algorithm for multi-dueling bandits: it achieves O(KT) pseudo-regret against adversarial preferences and the instance-optimal O(∑i=a⋆ΔilogT) pseudo-regret under stochastic preferences, both simultaneously and without prior knowledge of the regime. For the Borda setting, we propose SA-MiDEX, a stochastic-and-adversarial algorithm that achieves O(K2logKT+Klog2T+∑i:ΔiB>0(ΔiB)2KlogKT) regret in stochastic environments and O(KTlogKT+K1/3T2/3(logK)1/3) regret against adversaries, again without prior knowledge of the regime. We complement our upper bounds with matching lower bounds for the Condorcet setting. For the Borda setting, our upper bounds are near-optimal with respect to the lower bounds (within a factor of K) and match the best-known results in the literature.
S Akash, Pratik Gajane, Jawar Singh
Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India · University of Orléans, France