analiza aiqbench
This short note clarifies the statistical mechanics behind union bounds in fixed-confidence best-arm identification, demonstrating their equivalence to strong familywise-error-rate (FWER) control problems. By explicitly mapping the terminology between multiple testing and bandit literature, it resolves apparent contradictions regarding multiplicity factors in proofs for unique best arms. This theoretical alignment is essential for researchers developing rigorous algorithms that require strict error guarantees in multi-armed bandit settings.
Where Does the Union Bound Go? Best-Arm Identification and Strong FWER Control
arXiv:2608.19903v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In fixed-confidence best-arm identification, proofs often use a union bound across the competing arms. From a multiple-testing point of view this can look puzzling: if the best arm is unique, only one hypothesis of the form ``arm $i$ is best'' can be true. Why then should there be a Bonferroni-type factor of $K-1$? The answer is that there are two natural ways to orient the hypotheses. In one orientation, best-arm identification is literally a strong familywise-error-rate (FWER) problem with $K-1$ true nulls. In the opposite orientation, exactly one null is true, but a pairwise implementation can falsely reject that one null through any of $K-1$ comparisons. Thus the multiplicity has not disappeared; it just pops up in different places. This note makes the equivalence explicit in the terminology of both communities.
Title:Where Does the Union Bound Go? Best-Arm Identification and Strong FWER Control
Abstract:In fixed-confidence best-arm identification, proofs often use a union bound across the competing arms. From a multiple-testing point of view this can look puzzling: if the best arm is unique, only one hypothesis of the form ``arm $i$ is best'' can be true. Why then should there be a Bonferroni-type factor of $K-1$? The answer is that there are two natural ways to orient the hypotheses. In one orientation, best-arm identification is literally a strong familywise-error-rate (FWER) problem with $K-1$ true nulls. In the opposite orientation, exactly one null is true, but a pairwise implementation can falsely reject that one null through any of $K-1$ comparisons. Thus the multiplicity has not disappeared; it just pops up in different places. This note makes the equivalence explicit in the terminology of both communities.
Methodology (stat.ME); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2608.19903 [stat.ME]
(or arXiv:2608.19903v1 [stat.ME] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19903 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 242 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Gaussian mean width strong converse bound on the classical identification capacity of quantum channels
arXiv · 4 iun. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · 15 aug. 2026