arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2506.24007

Minimax and Bayes Optimal Best-Arm Identification

Abstract

This study investigates minimax and Bayes optimal strategies for fixed-budget best-arm identification. We consider an adaptive procedure consisting of a sampling phase followed by a recommendation phase. Within this framework, we design an adaptive experiment to efficiently identify the best arm, defined as the one with the highest expected outcome. In our proposed strategy, the sampling phase consists of two stages. The first stage is a pilot phase, in which we allocate samples uniformly across arms to eliminate clearly suboptimal arms and to estimate outcome variances. Before entering the second stage, we solve a Gaussian minimax game, which yields a sampling policy and a decision rule. In the second stage, samples are allocated according to this policy. After the sampling phase, the procedure enters the recommendation phase, where we select an arm using the decision rule. We prove that this single strategy is simultaneously asymptotically minimax and Bayes optimal for the simple regret, and we establish upper bounds that coincide exactly with our lower bounds, including the constant terms. The lower bounds hold against every adaptive experiment and for every fixed number of arms, and the strategy attains them without knowing the outcome distributions or the prior.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Masahiro Kato. 2026-07-25. Minimax and Bayes Optimal Best-Arm Identification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.24007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Summary Indices in Treatment Effect Estimation

This paper studies the practice of combining multiple outcomes into a summary index to estimate a causal effect. For common estimators and index constructions, the estimate equals a weighted sum of the estimated effects on the components, with weights that are implicit and rarely reported. The paper derives the weights and shows that, for inverse-covariance-weighted indices, they can be negative and unrestricted in magnitude, so the index effect can have the opposite sign to every component effect. The paper proposes two procedures for valid inference on the index effect: a variance estimator that accounts for the data-dependent weights, and a shifted t-test that requires no such correction. Conventional t-tests of the null of no effect remain valid. Contrary to common claims, summary indices do not generally improve power. Three published studies illustrate the results.

econ.EM

The "Rough" HAR Model

This paper proposes discrete-time approximations to rough continuous-time models of realized variance (RV). The leading rough models can be viewed as autoregressive processes driven by fractional Gaussian noise. We show that the Wold representation of this noise concentrates its dependence at the first lag when the Hurst parameter is below one half. Augmenting the autoregressive (AR) and heterogeneous autoregressive (HAR) models with a first-order moving-average (MA(1)) component therefore approximates the roughness, and the MA coefficient maps almost linearly into the Hurst parameter. We refer to these extensions as the "rough" AR and "rough" HAR models. Estimating them on the log RV of ten ETFs, we find negative MA coefficients for every asset, and the implied Hurst parameters align closely with the estimates from the continuous-time models. In the HAR literature, the negative MA(1) component is a significant feature that has been largely overlooked. In out-of-sample comparisons, the "rough" models outperform their classical counterparts for nearly every asset and horizon, with the largest gains at short horizons, and their accuracy is comparable to that of the rough continuous-time models but much easier to estimate by standard off-the-shelf software.

econ.EM

Match forecasts in UEFA club competitions: Elo ratings versus Transfermarkt valuations

The pre-season strengths of European football clubs are usually measured by two proxies in the literature. Football Club Elo Ratings provide strictly performance-based Elo ratings from the early days of the European Cups, while Transfermarkt valuations are crowd-based estimates of squad market values. This paper compares them by evaluating their ability to forecast the results of matches played in the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League between the seasons 2020/21 and 2024/25. The two indicators yield almost identical out-of-sample accuracy when used separately. Combining the two measures leads to a modest improvement, but the best aggregation procedure is sensitive to the forecast target. Our results suggest that seeding based on Elo ratings would be (closely) optimal.

econ.EM