Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 43 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 18 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 16 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 95 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 198 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 464 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

The True Sample Complexity of Identifying Good Arms (1906.06594v1)

Published 15 Jun 2019 in stat.ML and cs.LG

Abstract: We consider two multi-armed bandit problems with $n$ arms: (i) given an $\epsilon > 0$, identify an arm with mean that is within $\epsilon$ of the largest mean and (ii) given a threshold $\mu_0$ and integer $k$, identify $k$ arms with means larger than $\mu_0$. Existing lower bounds and algorithms for the PAC framework suggest that both of these problems require $\Omega(n)$ samples. However, we argue that these definitions not only conflict with how these algorithms are used in practice, but also that these results disagree with intuition that says (i) requires only $\Theta(\frac{n}{m})$ samples where $m = |{ i : \mu_i > \max_{i \in [n]} \mu_i - \epsilon}|$ and (ii) requires $\Theta(\frac{n}{m}k)$ samples where $m = |{ i : \mu_i > \mu_0 }|$. We provide definitions that formalize these intuitions, obtain lower bounds that match the above sample complexities, and develop explicit, practical algorithms that achieve nearly matching upper bounds.

Citations (37)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.