Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Best Group Identification in Multi-Objective Bandits

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces fixed-confidence algorithms that identify Pareto-optimal groups and weighted-best groups from vector-valued bandit rewards, with sample-complexity upper bounds and lower bounds matching up to constants and log factors.

desk verdict New problem formulation and solid upper-bound work, but the GPSI lower-bound proof has a genuine gap that undercuts the near-optimality claim for Pareto-optimal groups. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17869 v1 pith:LGOI6H7J submitted 2025-05-23 cs.LG

Mohammad Shahverdikondori , Mohammad Reza Badri , Negar Kiyavash This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords multi-objectivebanditsbestgroupidentificationParetosetlinearfixed-confidencepureexplorationsamplecomplexityeliminationalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces Best Group Identification (BGI), a fixed-confidence pure-exploration problem in multi-objective multi-armed bandits. Arms are split into groups, and each group is summarized by its efficiency vector, the coordinate-wise best mean reward attainable inside the group; in the Pareto version the optimal groups are those not uniformly outperformed by any other group, while in the linear version a known weight vector selects the group maximizing the weighted sum of its efficiency vector. For the Pareto version (GPSI), the paper proposes Triple Elimination (TE), which maintains active sets of groups, dimensions, and arms and eliminates only what must still be resolved; for the linear version (LBGI), it proposes Equal Effect Confidence Bound (EECB), which focuses sampling on the dimension whose weighted confidence radius is largest. The paper proves both algorithms are correct with probability at least $1-\delta$ and gives instance-dependent sample-complexity upper bounds, together with lower bounds that match up to constants and logarithmic factors on constructed hard instances. If these bounds are right, BGI is the multi-objective group analogue of classic best-arm identification: difficulty is governed by inverse squared gaps, and the group structure does not add an exponential price.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the efficiency vector $R_i = (\max_{j} \mu^d_{i,j})_{d=1}^D$, built from the tensor of arm means; every group comparison is a comparison of these vectors. Around it the paper defines the group sub-optimality gap $\Delta_i$ and the in-group arm gap $\Delta_{i,j} = m(\mu_{i,j}, R_i)$, where $m(u,v)$ is the smallest per-coordinate add-on that keeps $v$ from strictly dominating $u$, with combined gap $\tilde{\Delta}_{i,j} = \max(\Delta_i, \Delta_{i,j}, \epsilon)$ for GPSI. Both algorithms are driven by the confidence radius $\beta(r,\delta) = \sqrt{2\log(4NKDr^2/\delta)/r}$, which shrinks as samples accumulate; TE eliminates a group when a competitor's estimated efficiency vector is $2\beta$ ahead, freezes a dimension once all pairwise differences are separated by $4\beta+\epsilon$, and eliminates an arm when its estimated mean trails its group's efficiency by $2\beta$. EECB's distinctive mechanism is its dimension-selection rule: at each round it samples the dimension $d$ whose $w_d \beta(n_d,\delta)$ is largest, so weighted uncertainty is equalized and every gap has a per-dimension projection of at least $\Delta_{i,j}/D$.

What would settle it

Build a two-group instance with efficiency vectors $R_1=(0.9,0.7)$ and $R_2=(0.7,0.9)$, but arrange that the arm reaching $0.9$ in dimension 1 of group 1 is different from the arm reaching $0.7$ in dimension 2, then apply the paper's perturbation to one non-maximal arm and check numerically whether $R_1$ changes; if it does not, the change-of-measure lower bound for arms in optimal groups fails on that instance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GPSI can be solved by Triple Elimination with sample complexity $O(\sum_{i,j} \tilde{\Delta}_{i,j}^{-2} \log(NKD/(\delta \tilde{\Delta}_{i,j})))$, and LBGI can be solved by EECB with complexity $O(\sum_{i,j} (\Delta_{i,j}/D)^{-2} \log(NKD/(\delta \Delta_{i,j})))$, while any correct algorithm needs $\Omega(\sum_{i,j} \tilde{\Delta}_{i,j}^{-2} \log(1/\delta))$ samples on the hard instances. TE achieves this by running three nested elimination phases: reject groups whose estimated efficiency vector is dominated by another active group, freeze resolved dimensions once pairwise order is statistically clear, and drop arms whose mean is far below their group's efficiency. EECB achieves its bound by pulling, in each round, all active arms in the dimension $d$ with maximal $w_d \beta(n_d,\delta)$, which keeps weighted confidence widths balanced across dimensions; this equal-effect rule converts the $D$-dimensional problem into per-arm gap problems with an effective $D$-way slack. The lower bounds are proven by perturbing one arm's reward distribution on fully-dependent Gaussian instances and applying a change-of-measure identity, so the claimed near-optimality is for those instance classes rather than for every environment.

Load-bearing premise

The GPSI lower-bound proof needs the perturbation of a single arm in an optimal group to shift that group's efficiency vector in every coordinate; the paper does not guarantee that each arm attains its group's maximum in every dimension, and if one does not, the alternative instance leaves the old efficiency vector intact and the lower bound for optimal-group arms is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If TE's upper bound is correct, a learner can identify the Pareto-optimal groups without estimating every arm to the same accuracy; arms with large in-group gaps or groups far from the Pareto front are discarded after few pulls.
  • If EECB's upper bound is correct, the known-weight linear problem has the same inverse-squared-gap scaling as single-objective best-arm identification, with the number of dimensions entering only through the effective gap $\Delta_{i,j}/D$.
  • The lower bounds imply that on the constructed fully-dependent Gaussian instances, no $(\epsilon,\delta)$-PAC or $\delta$-correct algorithm can beat these rates, so the algorithms are near-optimal there up to constants and logarithmic factors.
  • The experiments show TE beating uniform sampling and simplified eliminations, and EECB beating a Pareto-first baseline by an order of magnitude, so the theoretical savings appear in practice on the tested instances.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: an implicit next step is the fixed-budget version of BGI, where the stopping rule is replaced by a fixed round budget while the same elimination and equal-effect sampling rules are kept; the paper does not analyze this regime.
  • Editorial: because EECB's sampling weights are read only through $w_d \beta(n_d,\delta)$, a natural extension replaces known weights by estimated dimension importances, but the correctness argument would need new concentration bounds and is not in the paper.
  • Editorial: the lower-bound hard instances use fully-dependent Gaussian reward vectors, a worst-case dependence structure; on independent or negatively correlated dimensions the practical sample counts may be lower than the worst-case bound, which the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Best Group Identification (BGI) problem in multi-objective multi-armed bandits, where arms are partitioned into groups and each group is summarized by an efficiency vector whose entries are the per-dimension best mean rewards among the group's arms. Two settings are studied: Group Pareto Set Identification (GPSI), where the goal is to output the set of Pareto-optimal groups up to an epsilon-approximation, and Linear Best Group Identification (LBGI), where a known weight vector makes the objective linear. For GPSI the paper proposes the Triple Elimination (TE) algorithm and proves an (epsilon, delta)-PAC guarantee with an instance-dependent sample-complexity upper bound of order sum_{i,j} 1/Delta_tilde_{i,j}^2 log(NKD/(delta Delta_tilde_{i,j})). For LBGI it proposes the Equal Effect Confidence Bound (EECB) algorithm and proves delta-correctness with an upper bound of order sum_{i,j} 1/(Delta_{i,j}/D)^2 log(NKD/(delta Delta_{i,j})). Lower bounds are claimed for both problems. Numerical experiments compare TE with ablations and a uniform-sampling baseline, and EECB with a TE-based baseline.

Significance. If the upper-bound results are correct, the paper provides the first fixed-confidence algorithms for best group identification in multi-objective bandits, a natural and previously under-explored problem. The TE and EECB algorithms are clean elimination schemes, and the upper-bound proofs are detailed and appear internally consistent under the stated concentration event. The numerical experiments, while limited, support the practical value of dimension and arm elimination. The main caveat is the GPSI lower bound: as written, the proof for arms in the Pareto-optimal groups does not establish the claimed per-arm lower bound, and hence the near-optimality statement for TE is not fully supported. This gap is local to the lower-bound construction and does not affect the correctness or sample-complexity upper bound of TE, so the paper merits a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix B.2 / Theorem 3.5] The lower-bound proof for arms in the optimal groups is not valid as written. For each arm (1,l), the alternative instance V(1,l) adds s = a1 - min(mu^1_{1,l}, mu^2_{1,l}) + epsilon + alpha to all coordinates of arm (1,l), and the proof asserts that G2 is dominated by G1 with gap epsilon+alpha. This requires R'_1 > R_2 + epsilon in every coordinate. For d >= 3, both R_1 and R_2 equal a3, and the shifted arm contributes mu^d_{1,l} + s, so the new efficiency in coordinate d is max(a3, mu^d_{1,l} + s). Condition (13) lower-bounds only the first two coordinates of the arm means; it does not ensure that mu^d_{1,l} + s exceeds a3 + epsilon for d >= 3. If it does not, R'_1^d remains a3, G2 is not dominated by G1, and G2 is still in G*_epsilon, so the event E2 is not forced to have small probability under V(1,l). The same issue applies to arms (2,l). Consequently the per-arm lower bound for optimal-group arms, and hence the full sum in Theorem 3.5, does not follow from the stated construction. This does not affect the TE upper bound, but it is load-bearing for the claimed near-optimality of TE for GPSI. The gap could be repaired by strengthening the hard-instance construction, for example by ensuring that the perturbed arm saturates all coordinates of the group efficiency vector, and then re-verifying the alternative instance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Lemma B.2] The proof concludes that the final inequality holds 'because N≥2', but the displayed inequality involves (NKD)^{12}; since K,D≥1 the conclusion still holds, but the justification should cite NKD≥2 rather than N≥2.
  2. [Appendix B, Lemma B.13] The chain of inequalities in the proof would be easier to follow if it explicitly invoked the arm-elimination rule at line 12 of Algorithm 1; as written, the middle inequality is easy to misread.
  3. [Section 5.1] The Uniform Sampling baseline is described as outputting 'all optimal arms along with non-optimal arms whose gap is less than ε'; this should refer to groups, not arms.
  4. [Throughout] There are several small typos: 'as most' in Theorem 4.1 should be 'at most', 'Appendix 3' in Remark 3.4 should be 'Appendix B', and the description of Δ_min in Section 5 is missing the quantity being minimized.
  5. [Theorem 3.5] The statement says 'for small ε > 0' but does not quantify how small ε must be relative to the parameters a1,...,a5; providing explicit inequalities would make the hard-instance class easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sample-complexity bounds are derived from gap definitions and Hoeffding-style confidence intervals, and the lower bounds use change-of-measure hard instances rather than assuming their conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The upper bounds for Triple Elimination and EECB are proved through the standard elimination-argument route: define true gaps in terms of the arm-mean tensor, use fixed Hoeffding confidence bounds beta(r, delta), and show that an arm or group is eliminated only when the confidence width is comparable to the relevant true gap. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; beta(r, delta) is a closed-form union-bound quantity and is not tuned to data. The lower bounds are constructed by explicitly changing the arm means on hard instances and applying the change-of-measure Lemma 1 of KCG16, so they establish constraints on any correct algorithm rather than assuming the algorithm's stopping rule is optimal. Self-citations are present, e.g. [SARK25] in the related-work list, but they are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or central premise is imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptic's concern about Theorem 3.5 is a genuine proof gap -- the perturbation of a single arm (1,l) does not by itself guarantee that every coordinate of R_1 rises above R_2 by epsilon+alpha, because for dimensions d>=3 the efficiency coordinate may remain a3 unless that arm also maximizes those coordinates. However, that is an error or missing argument in the lower-bound construction, not circularity: the claimed lower bound does not follow from the assumptions by definition, and the upper-bound and correctness results are independent of this issue. Since no circular step can be exhibited by the paper's own equations, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the sub-Gaussian bounded-mean model, the unique-best-group and known-weight assumptions in LBGI, and the fully-dependent arm construction used only for lower bounds. No parameters are fitted to data; the algorithm uses the prescribed Hoeffding confidence width beta(r,delta).

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reward distributions are 1-sub-Gaussian and reward means lie in [0,1].
    Stated in Section 2 and used for all confidence intervals via Hoeffding-type bounds in Lemma B.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Reward dimensions may have arbitrary dependence; the lower bounds restrict to fully-dependent arms.
    Definition B.14 introduces fully-dependent arms solely to make KL computations tractable in the lower bounds; the upper bounds hold for general dependency.
  • domain assumption In LBGI, the weight vector w is known and the best group is unique.
    Section 4 states these assumptions; they are used to define gaps and the delta-correctness criterion.
  • ad hoc to paper In the GPSI lower bound, modifying a single arm is assumed to increase every coordinate of the group efficiency vector.
    The proof of Theorem 3.5 relies on this unstated property for arms in group 1; without it the alternative instance does not necessarily change the efficiency vector. This is the main flaw noted in the red flags.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Best Group Identification in Multi-Objective Bandits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGOI6H7J

@misc{pith2026250517869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Best Group Identification in Multi-Objective Bandits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGOI6H7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17869}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the Best Group Identification problem in a multi-objective multi-armed bandit setting, where an agent interacts with groups of arms with vector-valued rewards. The performance of a group is determined by an efficiency vector which represents the group's best attainable rewards across different dimensions. The objective is to identify the set of optimal groups in the fixed-confidence setting. We investigate two key formulations: group Pareto set identification, where efficiency vectors of optimal groups are Pareto optimal and linear best group identification, where each reward dimension has a known weight and the optimal group maximizes the weighted sum of its efficiency vector's entries. For both settings, we propose elimination-based algorithms, establish upper bounds on their sample complexity, and derive lower bounds that apply to any correct algorithm. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate the strong empirical performance of the proposed algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of the experiments for the GPSI problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Best arm identification in multi-armed bandits

    Jean-Yves Audibert and S \'e bastien Bubeck. Best arm identification in multi-armed bandits. In COLT-23th Conference on learning theory-2010 , pages 13--p, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Pareto front identification from stochastic bandit feedback

    Peter Auer, Chao-Kai Chiang, Ronald Ortner, and Madalina Drugan. Pareto front identification from stochastic bandit feedback. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 939--947. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems

    S \'e bastien Bubeck, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, et al. Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 5(1):1--122, 2012

    2012

  4. [4]

    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: 20th International Conference, ALT 2009, Porto, Portugal, October 3-5, 2009. Proceedings 20 , pages 23--37. Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Survey on applications of multi-armed and contextual bandits

    Djallel Bouneffouf, Irina Rish, and Charu Aggarwal. Survey on applications of multi-armed and contextual bandits. In 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) , pages 1--8. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Nearly optimal sampling algorithms for combinatorial pure exploration

    Lijie Chen, Anupam Gupta, Jian Li, Mingda Qiao, and Ruosong Wang. Nearly optimal sampling algorithms for combinatorial pure exploration. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 482--534. PMLR, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Optimal Multi-Objective Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidence

    Zhirui Chen, PN Karthik, Yeow Meng Chee, and Vincent YF Tan. Optimal multi-objective best arm identification with fixed confidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13607 , 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Pure exploration with multiple correct answers

    R \'e my Degenne and Wouter M Koolen. Pure exploration with multiple correct answers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Designing multi-objective multi-armed bandits algorithms: A study

    Madalina M Drugan and Ann Nowe. Designing multi-objective multi-armed bandits algorithms: A study. In The 2013 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) , pages 1--8. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii

    Kalyanmoy Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and TAMT Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation , 6(2):182--197, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

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

    Eyal Even-Dar, Shie Mannor, Yishay Mansour, and Sridhar Mahadevan. Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems. Journal of machine learning research , 7(6), 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Optimal best arm identification with fixed confidence

    Aur \'e lien Garivier and Emilie Kaufmann. Optimal best arm identification with fixed confidence. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 998--1027. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Sequential learning of the pareto front for multi-objective bandits

    Aur \'e lien Garivier, Wouter M Koolen, et al. Sequential learning of the pareto front for multi-objective bandits. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 3583--3591. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Maximin action identification: A new bandit framework for games

    Aur \'e lien Garivier, Emilie Kaufmann, and Wouter M Koolen. Maximin action identification: A new bandit framework for games. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1028--1050. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Sample complexity of partition identification using multi-armed bandits

    Sandeep Juneja and Subhashini Krishnasamy. Sample complexity of partition identification using multi-armed bandits. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1824--1852. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    On the complexity of best-arm identification in multi-armed bandit models

    Emilie Kaufmann, Olivier Capp \'e , and Aur \'e lien Garivier. On the complexity of best-arm identification in multi-armed bandit models. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 17(1):1--42, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Pareto set identification with posterior sampling

    Cyrille Kone, Marc Jourdan, and Emilie Kaufmann. Pareto set identification with posterior sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04939 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Information complexity in bandit subset selection

    Emilie Kaufmann and Shivaram Kalyanakrishnan. Information complexity in bandit subset selection. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 228--251. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Mixture martingales revisited with applications to sequential tests and confidence intervals

    Emilie Kaufmann and Wouter M Koolen. Mixture martingales revisited with applications to sequential tests and confidence intervals. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 22(246):1--44, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bandit pareto set identification in a multi-output linear model, 2024

    Cyrille Kone, Emilie Kaufmann, and Laura Richert. Bandit pareto set identification in a multi-output linear model, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Bandit pareto set identification: the fixed budget setting

    Cyrille Kone, Emilie Kaufmann, and Laura Richert. Bandit pareto set identification: the fixed budget setting. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 2548--2556. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Almost optimal exploration in multi-armed bandits

    Zohar Karnin, Tomer Koren, and Oren Somekh. Almost optimal exploration in multi-armed bandits. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1238--1246. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Parego: A hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems

    Joshua Knowles. Parego: A hybrid algorithm with on-line landscape approximation for expensive multiobjective optimization problems. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation , 10(1):50--66, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Pac subset selection in stochastic multi-armed bandits

    Shivaram Kalyanakrishnan, Ambuj Tewari, Peter Auer, and Peter Stone. Pac subset selection in stochastic multi-armed bandits. In ICML , volume 12, pages 655--662, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Max-quantile grouped infinite-arm bandits

    Ivan Lau, Yan Hao Ling, Mayank Shrivastava, and Jonathan Scarlett. Max-quantile grouped infinite-arm bandits. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 909--945. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Bandit algorithms

    Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesv \'a ri. Bandit algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Multi-objective generalized linear bandits

    Shiyin Lu, Guanghui Wang, Yao Hu, and Lijun Zhang. Multi-objective generalized linear bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12879 , 2019

    1905 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Multi-reward best policy identification

    Alessio Russo and Filippo Vannella. Multi-reward best policy identification. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making

    Diederik M Roijers, Peter Vamplew, Shimon Whiteson, and Richard Dazeley. A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 48:67--113, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Optimal best arm identification with post-action context

    Mohammad Shahverdikondori, Amir Mohammad Abouei, Alireza Rezaeimoghadam, and Negar Kiyavash. Optimal best arm identification with post-action context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03061 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    From ads to interventions: Contextual bandits in mobile health

    Ambuj Tewari and Susan A Murphy. From ads to interventions: Contextual bandits in mobile health. Mobile health: sensors, analytic methods, and applications , pages 495--517, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Multi-objective reinforcement learning using sets of pareto dominating policies

    Kristof Van Moffaert and Ann Now \'e . Multi-objective reinforcement learning using sets of pareto dominating policies. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15(1):3483--3512, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Max-min grouped bandits

    Zhenlin Wang and Jonathan Scarlett. Max-min grouped bandits. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 36, pages 8603--8611, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Fast pure exploration via frank-wolfe

    Po-An Wang, Ruo-Chun Tzeng, and Alexandre Proutiere. Fast pure exploration via frank-wolfe. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:5810--5821, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Pareto regret analyses in multi-objective multi-armed bandit

    Mengfan Xu and Diego Klabjan. Pareto regret analyses in multi-objective multi-armed bandit. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 38499--38517. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Active learning for multi-objective optimization

    Marcela Zuluaga, Guillaume Sergent, Andreas Krause, and Markus P \"u schel. Active learning for multi-objective optimization. In International conference on machine learning , pages 462--470. PMLR, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.