Regret Tail Characterization of Optimal Bandit Algorithms with Generic Rewards

We study the distribution of regret in stochastic multi-armed bandits and episodic reinforcement learning through a unified framework. We formalize a distributional regret bound as a probabilistic guarantee that holds uniformly over all confidence levels $δ\in (0,1]$, thereby characterizing the regret distribution across the full range of $δ$. We present a simple UCBVI-style algorithm with exploration bonus $\min\{c_{1,k}/N, c_{2,k}/\sqrt{N}\}$, where $N$ denotes the visit count and $(c_{1,k},c_{2,k})$ are user-specified parameters. For arbitrary parameter sequences, we derive general gap-independent and gap-dependent distributional regret bounds, yielding a principled characterization of how the parameters control the trade-off between expected performance, tail risk, and instance-dependent behavior. In particular, our bounds achieve optimal trade-offs between expected and distributional regret in both minimax and instance-dependent regimes. As a special case, for multi-armed bandits with $A$ arms and horizon $T$, we obtain a distributional regret bound of order $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{AT}\log(1/δ))$, confirming the conjecture of Lattimore & Szepesvári (2020, Section 17.1) for the first time.

Heavy-tailed distributions arise naturally in sequential decision-making problems such as financial investment, online advertising, and network management, where rare but extreme outcomes can dominate performance. Heavy-tailed bandits model online decision-making in these settings by assuming only that rewards $X$ satisfy $\mathbb{E}[|X|^{1+ε}]\leq u$, for some tail exponent $ε\in(0,1]$ and moment bound $u<+\infty$. However, most existing regret minimization algorithms require these parameters to be known. This assumption is particularly restrictive in practice: $ε$ and $u$ govern the frequency and magnitude of rare events and are therefore precisely the quantities that are hardest to infer reliably from limited observations. Motivated by an open problem posed by Genalti and Metelli at COLT 2025, we resolve the assumption-free adaptation problem for heavy-tailed bandits and characterize the price in the regret of not knowing the tail parameters. We first study adaptation to the moment bound $u$ for a fixed tail exponent $ε$. We prove that every algorithm unaware of $u$, or of any upper bound on it, must obey a sharp trade-off between its distribution-dependent and distribution-free regret guarantees. We then introduce a scheduled-exploration algorithm that requires no knowledge of $u$ and matches the resulting adaptation frontier up to logarithmic factors. Finally, we show that the same algorithm can be instanced without knowing $ε$ by calibrating its exploration schedule to the endpoint $ε=1$. It achieves sublinear regret for every fixed $ε>0$, while no algorithm can guarantee sublinear regret uniformly over all $ε\in(0,1]$. Altogether, our results resolve the COLT open problem without additional distributional assumptions and provide a sharp characterization of the statistical cost of adapting to unknown heavy tails.

We study a stochastic bandit algorithm motivated by retry-aware objectives that value the best outcome among multiple attempts, such as pass@$k$ and max@$k$. Given a posterior over arm values, ReMax chooses a sampling distribution that maximizes the posterior expected maximum reward over $M$ virtual draws. Although this objective was introduced in reinforcement learning as an exploration mechanism under uncertainty, its regret properties in bandit problems have remained unclear. For Gaussian rewards and the first nontrivial case $M=2$, we characterize the optimal ReMax distribution through an expected-improvement balance condition and prove the first sublinear regret bound for ReMax. Our analysis separates the usual saturation behavior of suboptimal arms from a ReMax-specific underestimation effect, in which the optimal arm may be sampled too rarely after an unfavorable estimate. This explains why ReMax can be more exploitative than Thompson sampling (TS) and why its regret analysis is technically delicate. Experiments support this picture: ReMax often outperforms KL-UCB and Thompson sampling under mild underestimation, while posterior-variance scaling empirically mitigates severe underestimation.