Bandits with Multiple Optimal Arms: Minimax Regret and Non-Adaptivity

In multi-armed bandits, the most-explored arms are the most informative, while reward maximization typically pulls only the best arm. We study the tradeoff between identifying arm means accurately and accumulating reward, and present an algorithm with regret guarantees that interpolates between the two objectives. We provide both upper and lower bounds and validate empirically.

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.

A learner probes at most $k$ of $n$ arms each round, receives the maximum of their rewards in $[0,1]$, and competes with the best fixed arm. When does the probing advantage pay for learning? We determine two minimax laws. Under independent stochastic rewards with winner feedback (the maximum and a winning label), or on arbitrary fixed sequences given a single signed contrast between block maxima, the minimax regret has order $Φ_{n,k}(T)=\min\{\frac{n-k}{n}T,\frac{n-k}{k}\}$, $2\le k<n$. Under winner feedback, both arbitrary joint i.i.d. rewards and fixed sequences have minimax regret of order $R_{n,k}(T)=\frac{n-k}{n}\min\{T,\frac{n+T}{k},\sqrt{\frac{nT}{k}}\}$. Both laws have universal constants and anytime upper bounds. The first reduces regret to a pure coverage cost: same-round contrasts absorb the stability cost, and independence permits exact resampling whose gains fund sample advancement. The second adds a learning cost that becomes comparable to coverage at horizon $n$; beyond $nk$, numerical maxima improve over labels alone. The lower bound allows every adaptive action size.