Trading off rewards and errors in multi-armed bandits

We study the problem of identifying the dominant arm in multi-armed bandits, where the objective is to find the action with the highest probability of exceeding the realized rewards of all other actions. Conventional mean-based and pairwise comparison-based algorithms often fail to identify the arm with the highest realized reward. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel dominant arm criterion and an efficient estimator with theoretical guarantees. Our approach relies on two key technical innovations: (i) a dominance score criterion that an arm beats the locally dominant over the partitioned reward space and (ii) a joint mixing and recycling mechanism coupled with a doubly robust estimator that guarantees simultaneous convergence of the empirical distribution functions for all arms. These key innovations pave a way to efficient computation of global arm dominance. Our proposed elimination algorithm identifies the best dominant arm with nearly optimal rate of sample complexity. Numerical experiments demonstrate that our algorithm consistently achieves exact recovery of the true dominant arm, outperforming existing baselines.

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.

We study \emph{multi-armed bandits} (MABs) augmented with \emph{best-action queries}, in which the learner may additionally query an oracle that reveals the best arm in the current round. This setting was recently characterized by Russo et al. [2024] in the \emph{full-feedback} model, where the learner observes the rewards of all arms after each round. They show that, in both \emph{stochastic} and \emph{adversarial} environments, $k$ best-action queries reduce the optimal $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T})$ regret to $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\min\{T/k,\sqrt{T}\})$. Whether this improvement extends to the more realistic \emph{bandit-feedback} model -- where the learner observes only the reward of the played arm -- was left as an open problem. We fully resolve this question. When rewards are stochastic but correlated among arms, we show that the full-feedback result does not carry over: any algorithm must incur regret at least $Ω(\sqrt{T-k})$. This lower bound directly extends to adversarial environments. On the positive side, we show that $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(\min\{T/k,\sqrt{T-k}\})$ regret is still achievable when rewards are stochastic and i.i.d., and establish a matching lower bound, up to logarithmic factors. Together, these results provide a complete characterization of the benefits of \emph{best-action queries} in the \emph{bandit-feedback} model.