PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Best Arm Identification for Stochastic Rising Bandits

Marco Mussi, Alessandro Montenegro, Francesco Trovò, Marcello Restelli, Alberto Maria Metelli

learning theoryBest Arm IdentificationRisingRestedStochasticBandits
78.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
85.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
71.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Stochastic Rising Bandits (SRBs) model sequential decision-making problems in which the expected reward of the available options increases every time they are selected. This setting captures a wide range of scenarios in which the available options are learning entities whose performance improves (in expectation) over time. While previous works addressed the regret minimization problem, this paper focuses on the fixed-budget Best Arm Identification (BAI) problem for SRBs. In this scenario, given a fixed budget of rounds, we are asked to provide a recommendation about the best option at the end of the identification process. We propose two algorithms to tackle the above-mentioned setting, namely R-UCBE, which resorts to a UCB-like approach, and R-SR, which employs a successive reject procedure. Then, we prove that, with a sufficiently large budget, they provide guarantees on the probability of properly identifying the optimal option at the end of the learning process. Furthermore, we derive a lower bound on the error probability, matched by our R-SR (up to constant factors), and illustrate how the need for a sufficiently large budget is unavoidable in the SRB setting. Finally, we numerically validate the proposed algorithms in synthetic and real-world environments and compare them with the currently available BAI strategies.

Author context

Most prolific author: 4 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)