Fundamental Limitations of Fixed-Budget Best-Arm Identification

We study the Bayesian fixed-budget best-arm identification problem in which a learner can abstain from making a terminal recommendation. Subject to an abstention budget $α$, we analyze the probability of undetected error--the risk of recommending a suboptimal arm without abstaining. Our central finding is that abstention induces a phase transition: without abstention, the error probability decays polynomially in the sampling budget $T$; in contrast, introducing any small positive abstention budget shifts this to an exponential decay. For Gaussian priors and rewards, in the regime $T\to\infty$ followed by $α\downarrow0$, we establish exact matching information-theoretic lower bounds and algorithmic upper bounds on the optimal error exponent, which takes the form $\exp(-\frac{α^{2}T}{8κ_ν^{2}})$. The hardness parameter $κ_ν$ represents the prior density of the top-two gap at zero, highlighting that nearly tied instances drive the fundamental error. We introduce an adaptive algorithm, PGWS, that successfully achieves this optimal exponent by expending its abstention budget on statistically ambiguous instances. We further demonstrate that this polynomial-to-exponential improvement is exclusively a Bayesian phenomenon--in the frequentist setting, abstention only affects lower-order exponent terms. We also extend our results beyond the Gaussian model.

We study the minimax sample complexity of $\varepsilon$-best arm identification in linear bandits. Given a compact action set $\mathcal{X}$ that spans $\mathbb{R}^d$ and an unknown reward vector $θ\in\mathbb{R}^d$, the goal is to output an arm $\widehat{x}\in\mathcal{X}$ such that $\langle \widehat{x},θ\rangle \ge \max_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \langle x,θ\rangle - \varepsilon$ with probability at least $1-δ$, using as few samples as possible. First, we present a non-adaptive fixed-design method with sample complexity $\mathcal{O}\!\left(\frac{d\log(1/δ)}{\varepsilon^2}+\frac{w(\mathcal{X})^2}{\varepsilon^2}\right)$, where $w(\mathcal{X})$ is a Gaussian width term dependent on $\mathcal{X}$, and we prove a matching lower bound $Ω\!\left(\frac{d\log(1/δ)}{\varepsilon^2}+\frac{w(\mathcal{X})^2}{\varepsilon^2}\right)$ for all non-adaptive fixed-design methods. We then turn to adaptive sampling. We raise an important structural question: beyond the canonical basis, are there structured action sets for which adaptivity yields only logarithmic-factor improvements over the optimal non-adaptive rate? We answer in the affirmative for several natural action sets, namely the hypercube, the $\ell_2$ ball, $m$-sets, and multi-task multi-armed bandits. Finally, we provide the first construction of an action set $\mathcal{X}$ for which adaptivity yields a polynomial-factor improvement over every non-adaptive algorithm. A key ingredient behind this separation is an $\ell_2$-norm estimation subroutine: we design an adaptive algorithm that uses $\mathcal{O}\!\left(\frac{d\log(1/δ)}{\varepsilon^2}\right)$ samples from the unit $\ell_2$ ball in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and outputs an estimate $\widehat r$ satisfying $|\widehat r-\|θ\|_2|\le \varepsilon$ with probability at least $1-δ$, where $θ$ is the unknown reward vector.

We study bandit best-arm identification with arbitrary and potentially adversarial rewards. A simple random uniform learner obtains the optimal rate of error in the adversarial scenario. However, this type of strategy is suboptimal when the rewards are sampled stochastically. Therefore, we ask: Can we design a learner that performs optimally in both the stochastic and adversarial problems while not being aware of the nature of the rewards? First, we show that designing such a learner is impossible in general. In particular, to be robust to adversarial rewards, we can only guarantee optimal rates of error on a subset of the stochastic problems. We give a lower bound that characterizes the optimal rate in stochastic problems if the strategy is constrained to be robust to adversarial rewards. Finally, we design a simple parameter-free algorithm and show that its probability of error matches (up to log factors) the lower bound in stochastic problems, and it is also robust to adversarial ones.