aiqbench analysis
This research establishes theoretical bounds for adversarial multi-objective bandits, demonstrating that knowledge of the "easiest" coordinate does not improve worst-case Pareto regret rates. The authors provide matching upper and lower bounds using adapted Poly-INF algorithms, proving optimal performance is achievable even without identifying specific easy dimensions. These findings clarify fundamental limits in multidimensional optimization under adversarial conditions, offering a rigorous foundation for future algorithmic designs in complex reward landscapes.
The Role of Coordinates in Pareto Regret for Adversarial Multi-Objective Bandits
arXiv:2609.23092v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Adversarial multi-objective bandits hold the potential to help us optimize choices (arms) whose reward is a multidimensional vector chosen by an adversary and whose performance is measured by Pareto regret. We define loss as one minus reward and measure the easiness of a coordinate by the smallest cumulative loss of the arms on it, and call the coordinate easier when this quantity is smaller. Existing work suggests that in theory an easier coordinate may reduce Pareto regret. However, in practice, one may not know which coordinate is easier. On the negative side, we show that this lack of information eliminates the possibility: a smaller cumulative loss does not improve the worst-case order of Pareto regret. Precisely, let \(L_d\) be the smallest cumulative loss along coordinate $d$ over $T$ rounds. For \(K\ge4\) arms, \(T\ge6\) rounds, and at least 2 coordinates, we prove that the minimax expected Pareto regret is \(\Omega(\min\{T-L_0,\sqrt{K(T-L_0)}\})\). It is monotonically decreasing in \(L_0\), even when \(L_0=\min_d L_d\) itself is known. On the positive side, this result motivates the possibility that other coordinates, not just the easy one, may suffice to attain the optimal rate of Pareto regret. When $L_0$ is known, we apply Poly-INF to a fixed coordinate and obtain an upper bound on Pareto regret that exhibits the same order and thus matches the lower bound. Without such knowledge, we develop a reward-doubling version of Poly-INF that adapts to this unknown quantity while still attaining the matching minimax rate. Another implication is that it has no extra \(\log T\) factor and is independent of the number of coordinates.
Abstract:Adversarial multi-objective bandits hold the potential to help us optimize choices (arms) whose reward is a multidimensional vector chosen by an adversary and whose performance is measured by Pareto regret. We define loss as one minus reward and measure the easiness of a coordinate by the smallest cumulative loss of the arms on it, and call the coordinate easier when this quantity is smaller. Existing work suggests that in theory an easier coordinate may reduce Pareto regret. However, in practice, one may not know which coordinate is easier. On the negative side, we show that this lack of information eliminates the possibility: a smaller cumulative loss does not improve the worst-case order of Pareto regret. Precisely, let \(L_d\) be the smallest cumulative loss along coordinate $d$ over $T$ rounds. For \(K\ge4\) arms, \(T\ge6\) rounds, and at least 2 coordinates, we prove that the minimax expected Pareto regret is \(\Omega(\min\{T-L_0,\sqrt{K(T-L_0)}\})\). It is monotonically decreasing in \(L_0\), even when \(L_0=\min_d L_d\) itself is known. On the positive side, this result motivates the possibility that other coordinates, not just the easy one, may suffice to attain the optimal rate of Pareto regret. When $L_0$ is known, we apply Poly-INF to a fixed coordinate and obtain an upper bound on Pareto regret that exhibits the same order and thus matches the lower bound. Without such knowledge, we develop a reward-doubling version of Poly-INF that adapts to this unknown quantity while still attaining the matching minimax rate. Another implication is that it has no extra \(\log T\) factor and is independent of the number of coordinates.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.23092 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.23092v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23092 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 355 words
Related coverage

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026
When More Objectives Make Identification Easier: The Role of Preferences and Feedback
arXiv · Oct 15, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
Top-$k$ Pareto Bandits: Hypervolume Regret for Multi-Objective Slate Selection
arXiv · Jul 31, 2026