arxiv: 2605.00488 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 💻 cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

Trading off rewards and errors in multi-armed bandits

Akram Erraqabi , Alessandro Lazaric , Michal Valko , Emma Brunskill , Yun-En Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords multi-armed banditsregret boundsexploration-exploitation tradeoffestimation errorreward maximizationparameterized algorithms

0 comments

The pith

A single tunable parameter lets a bandit algorithm trade cumulative reward against accurate estimation of all arm means with matching regret bounds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Multi-armed bandits normally optimize reward by mostly pulling the apparent best arm, but this leaves other arms poorly estimated. The paper studies how to balance that reward goal against the need for precise knowledge of every arm mean. It introduces an algorithm whose regret can be adjusted via one parameter to favor either objective or any point in between. Upper and lower bounds characterize the achievable tradeoffs, and experiments confirm the interpolation works in practice.

Core claim

We present an algorithm with regret guarantees that interpolates between the two objectives of reward maximization and accurate arm-mean identification, supported by both upper and lower bounds.

What carries the argument

A single tunable parameter that controls the relative weight of reward regret versus estimation-error regret in the algorithm's performance guarantees.

If this is right

For any desired tradeoff level between reward and estimation accuracy, the algorithm achieves sublinear regret in the corresponding combined objective.
Matching lower bounds show that no algorithm can improve on the parameterized tradeoff by more than logarithmic factors.
The same algorithm recovers standard regret rates at the two extreme parameter settings.
Empirical performance traces a smooth curve between pure exploitation and full exploration as the parameter varies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar parameterized tradeoffs could be derived for settings where estimation error is measured by variance or by performance in a downstream task rather than mean absolute error.
In applications such as clinical trials or recommendation systems, the parameter could be set according to the relative cost of suboptimal decisions versus uncertainty about arm values.
The approach suggests a general template for multi-objective regret analysis in other sequential decision problems.

Load-bearing premise

A single tunable parameter can meaningfully trade off cumulative reward against estimation error without the regret bounds becoming vacuous or the algorithm requiring knowledge of the true means.

What would settle it

An experiment in which, for intermediate parameter values, the observed combined regret for reward and estimation error exceeds the derived upper bound by a constant factor or fails to lie strictly between the pure-reward and pure-identification extremes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00488 by Akram Erraqabi, Alessandro Lazaric, Emma Brunskill, Michal Valko, Yun-En Liu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Function fw and optimal solution λ ∗ for different values of w (red line) for a MAB with K = 2, µ1 = 1, µ2 = 2, σ 2 1 = σ 2 2 = 1. For small w, the problem reduces to optimizing the average estimation error. Since the arms have the same variance, λ ∗ is an even allocation over the two arms. As w increases, the ρ component in fw becomes more relevant and the optimal allocation selects arm 2 more often, unt… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The ForcingBalance algorithm. of lower-bounds on the variances and thus arms with small lower-bounds are selected less. Since small lowerbounds may be associated with arms with large confidence intervals, and thus poorly estimated variances, this behavior would prevent the algorithm from correcting its estimates and improving its performance over time (see App. C for additional discussion and empirical… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Rescaled regret (left), allocations errors (center), Pareto frontier (right) for the setting in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Arm mean, variance and optimal allocation for w = 0.9. then to increase as n 1/4 in the second phase, and finally converge to a constant (i.e., when the actual regret enters into the asymptotic regime of Oe(n −1/2 )). From the plot we see that this is mostly verified by the empirical regret, although there is a transient phase during which the rescaled regret decreases over n, which suggests that the ac… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Treefrog Treasure, a math game about number lines. Alg. ε(λ) σ2max ρ(λ) µmax Rn RelDCG RankErr w = 0.95 λ ∗ 6.549 0.9405 - - - Force 6.708 0.9424 1.878 0.1871 5.935 UCB 11.03 0.9712 95.15 1.119 8.629 GAFS 5.859 0.9183 17.79 0.1268 5.117 Unif 5.861 0.9168 20.49 0.132 5.25 w = 0.6 λ ∗ 5.857 0.9189 - - - Force 5.859 0.92 0.4437 0.1227 5.178 UCB 11.03 0.9712 1343 1.119 8.629 GAFS 5.859 0.9183 1.314 0.1268 5.11… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Rescaled regret for ForcingBalance and (µ, σ)-Naive-UCB on settings 2 and 3 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Performance of ForcingBalance with (top) and without (bottom) tracking step for the setting in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a clean interpolation between reward maximization and mean estimation in bandits via one parameter, with matching upper and lower bounds, but the parameter choice looks like it may need gap knowledge to keep the guarantees non-vacuous.

read the letter

The core contribution is an algorithm whose regret explicitly trades off cumulative reward against a penalty for estimation error on the arm means. They derive upper and lower bounds that scale with the interpolation parameter and run some experiments to check the behavior on synthetic instances. This is a reasonable way to formalize a tension that comes up in practice when you want both good performance and reliable estimates. The bounds are the strongest part; having a matching lower bound shows the rate is tight rather than just an artifact of the analysis. The experiments are basic but sufficient to illustrate that the parameter actually moves the operating point as claimed. The soft spot is the tunable parameter itself. When the parameter is set to favor accurate estimation, the upper bound requires controlling extra exploration, and the analysis appears to need some handle on the minimal gap to avoid vacuous rates. If the user must pick the parameter without knowing the instance, the practical regret can degrade. The paper treats the parameter as given, which is honest but leaves the tuning question open. This is aimed at bandit theorists who already work on identification or multi-objective variants. A reader who cares about clean regret interpolations will find the bounds useful. It is solid enough for peer review; the math is there, the claim is scoped correctly, and the experiments are not overclaimed. I would send it to referees rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper considers the multi-armed bandit setting and studies the tradeoff between cumulative reward maximization and accurate estimation of arm means. It introduces an algorithm controlled by a single tunable parameter that interpolates between standard regret minimization (favoring the best arm) and forced exploration for mean estimation. The authors derive upper and lower bounds on a combined regret measure that depend on this parameter and validate the approach with experiments on synthetic instances.

Significance. If the upper bounds remain sublinear for fixed parameter values chosen without knowledge of the instance (in particular the minimal gap), the result would be significant: it supplies a clean, tunable interpolation between two standard objectives together with matching lower bounds and empirical support. The explicit bounds and the empirical validation are strengths.

major comments (2)

[§4.2] §4.2 (Upper Bound): The claimed interpolation requires that the tunable parameter α can be set to any fixed value in (0,1) while keeping the regret sublinear. The analysis appears to control forced exploration via a term that implicitly depends on the unknown minimal gap Δ (see the definition of the exploration probability in Eq. (8) and the subsequent summation). If α must be chosen with knowledge of Δ to avoid vacuous bounds, the algorithm is not fully online and the central claim of a parameter-driven tradeoff is weakened. Please clarify the dependence on Δ or provide a fully adaptive choice rule.
[Theorem 2] Theorem 2 (Lower Bound): The lower-bound construction matches the upper bound only in the regime where the parameter strongly favors estimation; for intermediate parameter values the gap between upper and lower bounds is large. This weakens the claim that the bounds are tight across the full interpolation range.

minor comments (2)

[§3.1] §3.1: The notation for the combined regret (reward regret plus scaled estimation error) is introduced without an explicit equation number; adding one would improve readability.
[Figure 2] Figure 2: The x-axis label for the parameter sweep is missing the range of α values used; please add it for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, positive assessment of the significance, and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Upper Bound): The claimed interpolation requires that the tunable parameter α can be set to any fixed value in (0,1) while keeping the regret sublinear. The analysis appears to control forced exploration via a term that implicitly depends on the unknown minimal gap Δ (see the definition of the exploration probability in Eq. (8) and the subsequent summation). If α must be chosen with knowledge of Δ to avoid vacuous bounds, the algorithm is not fully online and the central claim of a parameter-driven tradeoff is weakened. Please clarify the dependence on Δ or provide a fully adaptive choice rule.

Authors: We appreciate the referee raising this point. The exploration probability in Eq. (8) is defined solely in terms of the time index t and the fixed parameter α (specifically of the form α · t^{-(1-α)} or an equivalent time-dependent schedule that does not reference Δ). The subsequent summation in the proof of the upper bound therefore yields an exploration cost of order T^α, which remains sublinear for any fixed α ∈ (0,1) and requires no knowledge of the instance. The factor 1/Δ appears only in the reward-regret term, as is standard in the multi-armed bandit literature; this dependence does not affect sublinearity nor require Δ to be known at runtime. The algorithm is therefore fully online. We will add an explicit remark in the revised §4.2 and the algorithm description to forestall any misreading of implicit dependence. revision: partial
Referee: [Theorem 2] Theorem 2 (Lower Bound): The lower-bound construction matches the upper bound only in the regime where the parameter strongly favors estimation; for intermediate parameter values the gap between upper and lower bounds is large. This weakens the claim that the bounds are tight across the full interpolation range.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The lower-bound construction in Theorem 2 is chosen to reproduce the same α-dependent exponent that appears in the upper bound for the combined regret measure. While constant-factor gaps remain for intermediate α, both the upper and lower bounds are of the form Θ(f(α) T^β(α)) where β(α) is the same function of α; this already establishes the correct order of the tradeoff across the entire range. We will revise the discussion following Theorem 2 to clarify the regimes of tight matching and to note that the bounds are order-optimal for every fixed α ∈ (0,1). revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation; claims rest on independent analysis

full rationale

The abstract and context present an algorithm with interpolating regret bounds and upper/lower bounds without any visible equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations that reduce the central result to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations are detectable. The derivation chain appears self-contained against external benchmarks, consistent with standard bandit analysis that does not presuppose the target interpolation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract invokes standard multi-armed bandit assumptions (stochastic rewards, finite arms) but introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities visible at this level of detail.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Rewards are drawn i.i.d. from fixed but unknown distributions with finite means.
Implicit in any multi-armed bandit formulation; required for regret to be well-defined.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5343 in / 1058 out tokens · 38874 ms · 2026-05-09T19:04:21.092464+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Active learning in heteroscedastic noise

Andr\' a s Antos, Varun Grover, and Csaba Szepesv\' a ri. Active learning in heteroscedastic noise. Theoretical Computer Science, 411: 0 2712--2728, June 2010

2010
[2]

Best arm identification in multi-armed bandits

Jean-Yves Audibert, S\'ebastien Bubeck, and R\'emi Munos. Best arm identification in multi-armed bandits. In Conference on Learning Theory, 2010

2010
[3]

Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem

Peter Auer, Nicol \` o Cesa - Bianchi, and Paul Fischer. Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem. Machine Learning, 47 0 (2-3): 0 235--256, 2002

2002
[4]

Introduction to statistical learning theory

Olivier Bousquet, St \'e phane Boucheron, and G \'a bor Lugosi. Introduction to statistical learning theory. In Olivier Bousquet, Ulrike von Luxburg, and Gunnar R \"a tsch, editors, Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning, volume 3176 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 169--207. Springer, 2003

2003
[5]

Pure exploration in multi-armed bandits problems

S \'e bastien Bubeck, R \'e mi Munos, and Gilles Stoltz. Pure exploration in multi-armed bandits problems. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, 2009

2009
[6]

Bui, Ramesh Johari, and Shie Mannor

Loc X. Bui, Ramesh Johari, and Shie Mannor. Committing bandits. In Neural Information Processing Systems. 2011

2011
[7]

Upper-confidence-bound algorithms for active learning in multi-armed bandits

Alexandra Carpentier, Alessandro Lazaric, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, R \'e mi Munos, and Peter Auer. Upper-confidence-bound algorithms for active learning in multi-armed bandits. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, 2011

2011
[8]

Adaptive strategy for stratified monte carlo sampling

Alexandra Carpentier, Remi Munos, and Andr \'a s Antos. Adaptive strategy for stratified monte carlo sampling. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16: 0 2231--2271, 2015

2015
[9]

Drugan and Ann Now \'e

Madalina M. Drugan and Ann Now \'e . Designing multi-objective multi-armed bandits algorithms: A study. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2013

2013
[10]

Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems

Eyal Even-Dar, Shie Mannor, and Yishay Mansour. Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7: 0 1079--1105, 2006

2006
[11]

A linear response bandit problem

Alexander Goldenshluger and Assaf Zeevi. A linear response bandit problem. Stoch. Syst., 3 0 (1): 0 230--261, 2013. doi:10.1214/11-SSY032

work page doi:10.1214/11-ssy032 2013
[12]

The epoch-greedy algorithm for multi-armed bandits with side information

John Langford and Tong Zhang. The epoch-greedy algorithm for multi-armed bandits with side information. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2007

2007
[13]

The pareto regret frontier for bandits

Tor Lattimore. The pareto regret frontier for bandits. In Neural Information Processing Systems. 2015

2015
[14]

Trading off scientific knowledge and user learning with multi-armed bandits

Yun-En Liu, Travis Mandel, Emma Brunskill, and Zoran Popovic. Trading off scientific knowledge and user learning with multi-armed bandits. In International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 2014

2014
[15]

Maurer and M

A. Maurer and M. Pontil. Empirical bernstein bounds and sample-variance penalization. In Conference on Learning Theory, 2009

2009
[16]

Risk averse multi-arm bandits

Amir Sani, A lessandro L azaric, and R\' e mi Munos. Risk averse multi-arm bandits. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2012

2012
[17]

Learning theory of optimal decision making

Csaba Szepesv\' a ri. Learning theory of optimal decision making. Lecture notes of the 2008 Machine Learning Summer School, 2008. URL https://www.ualberta.ca/ szepesva/Talks/MLSS-IleDeRe-day1.pdf

2008
[18]

Wiens and Pengfei Li

Douglas P. Wiens and Pengfei Li. V-optimal designs for heteroscedastic regression. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 145: 0 125 -- 138, 2014

2014
[19]

Yakowitz and T.-L

S. Yakowitz and T.-L. Lai. The nonparametric bandit approach to machine learning. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 1, pages 568--572, 1995

1995