elimination
Tight Sample Complexity Bounds for Best-Arm Identification Under Bounded Systematic Bias
As search depth increases in autonomous reasoning and embodied planning, the candidate action space expands exponentially, heavily taxing computational budgets. While heuristic pruning is a common countermeasure, it operates without formal safety guarantees when surrogate models (like LLMs) exhibit systematic evaluation biases. This paper frames the node expansion process as a localized Best-Arm Identification (BAI) problem over dynamic frontiers, subject to a bounded systematic bias $L$. By inverting the Lambert W function, we establish an additive sample complexity of $\mathcal{O}((Δ-4L)^{-2})$, which indicates that safe node elimination is only feasible when the empirical reward gap exceeds $4L$. We complement this with an information-theoretic lower bound of $Ω((Δ-2L)^{-2})$ to confirm the structural limits of biased search. Subsequent evaluations on both synthetic trees and complex reasoning tasks demonstrate that adhering to this local safety boundary successfully preserves optimal trajectories while maximizing sample allocation efficiency.
- North America > United States > California > Los Angeles County > Los Angeles (0.28)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Florida > Palm Beach County > Boca Raton (0.04)
- Asia > Japan (0.04)
- South America > Brazil > São Paulo (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- Europe > Ireland (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Search (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.48)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.48)
- North America > United States > California > Orange County > Irvine (0.14)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- Europe > Ireland > Leinster > County Dublin > Dublin (0.04)
- Europe > Denmark > North Jutland > Aalborg (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Search (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (0.69)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.46)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > France > Île-de-France > Paris > Paris (0.04)
- Europe > France > Hauts-de-France > Nord > Lille (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining > Big Data (0.67)
- Asia > Middle East > UAE > Abu Dhabi Emirate > Abu Dhabi (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Logic & Formal Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.47)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Illinois (0.04)
- North America > United States > Arkansas > Cross County (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- Banking & Finance (0.67)
- Information Technology (0.46)