mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fast and Regret Optimal Best Arm Identification: Fundamental Limits and Low-Complexity Algorithms

arXiv 2309.00591 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2023cs.LG stat.MLcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper considers a stochastic Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) problem with dual objectives: (i) quick identification and commitment to the optimal arm, and (ii) reward maximization throughout a sequence of T consecutive rounds. Though each objective has been individually well-studied, i.e., best arm identification for (i) and regret minimization for (ii), the simultaneous realization of both objectives remains an open problem, despite its practical importance. This paper introduces Regret Optimal Best Arm Identification (ROBAI) which aims to achieve these dual objectives. To solve ROBAI with both pre-determined stopping time and adaptive stopping time requirements, we present an algorithm called EOCP and its variants respectively, which not only achieve asymptotic optimal regret in both Gaussian and general bandits, but also commit to the optimal arm in O(log T) rounds with pre-determined stopping time and O(log2 T) rounds with adaptive stopping time. We further characterize lower bounds on the commitment time (equivalent to the sample complexity) of ROBAI, showing that EOCP and its variants are sample optimal with pre-determined stopping time, and almost sample optimal with adaptive stopping time. Numerical results confirm our theoretical analysis and reveal an interesting "over-exploration" phenomenon carried by classic UCB algorithms, such that EOCP has smaller regret even though it stops exploration much earlier than UCB, i.e., O(log T) versus O(T), which suggests over-exploration is unnecessary and potentially harmful to system performance.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2023.

Builds on

20 of 45 references.

References · 20

  1. 2017Minimax Regret Bounds for Reinforcement Learningcited by 500
  2. 2018Is Q-learning Provably Efficient?cited by 485
  3. 2017A Tutorial on Thompson Samplingcited by 420
  4. 2020Is Pessimism Provably Efficient for Offline RL?cited by 362
  5. 2014On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Modelscited by 280
  6. 2021Bridging Offline Reinforcement Learning and Imitation Learning: A Tale of Pessimismcited by 275
  7. 2016Optimal Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidencecited by 233
  8. 2014An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Thompson Samplingcited by 178
  9. 2015Multi-armed Bandit Models for the Optimal Design of Clinical Trials: Benefits and Challengescited by 113
  10. 2022Pessimistic Q-Learning for Offline Reinforcement Learning: Towards Optimal Sample Complexitycited by 84
  11. 2022Settling the Sample Complexity of Model-Based Offline Reinforcement Learningcited by 82
  12. 2016On Explore-Then-Commit Strategiescited by 46
8 more
  1. 2021On the Optimality of Batch Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 28
  2. 2020Double Explore-then-Commit: Asymptotic Optimality and Beyondcited by 24
  3. 2018Bridging the gap between regret minimization and best arm identification, with application to A/B testscited by 18
  4. 2022Pessimism for Offline Linear Contextual Bandits using ℓp Confidence Setscited by 18
  5. 2022Exploration, Exploitation, and Engagement in Multi-Armed Bandits with Abandonmentcited by 5
  6. 2019Risk-Averse Explore-Then-Commit Algorithms for Finite-Time Banditscited by 3
  7. 2023Queue Scheduling with Adversarial Bandit Learningcited by 3
  8. 2022On Low-Complexity Quickest Intervention of Mutated Diffusion Processes Through Local Approximationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

10 papers.