m-Set Adversarial Bandits with Winner Feedback

We study adversarial combinatorial bandits with $m$-set actions, where at each round the learner selects $m$ out of $d$ items and observes only the aggregate loss of the selected items. The resulting action set contains $K=\binom{d}{m}$ elements and can therefore be exponentially large. Nevertheless, the loss of every action is determined by the same $d$-dimensional vector of item losses. We propose a computationally efficient algorithm that exploits this structure without explicitly enumerating the action set. Against adaptive non-anticipating adversaries, it guarantees, with probability at least $1-δ$, regret against the best fixed action of $$R_T = O\left(\sqrt{dT\log(K/δ)}\right).$$ This matches the high-probability regret bound of the finite-action EXP3-KW algorithm of Zimmert and Lattimore, whose direct implementation may require exponential space. Our algorithm instead represents each sampling distribution with $d$ parameters and runs in polynomial time without enumerating the action set. Thus, it resolves the open problem posed by Maiti et al.

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.