Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 14, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
A learner probes at most $k$ of $n$ arms each round, receives the maximum of their rewards in $[0,1]$, and competes with the best fixed arm. When does the probing advantage pay for learning? We determine two minimax laws. Under independent stochastic rewards with winner feedback (the maximum and a winning label), or on arbitrary fixed sequences given a single signed contrast between block maxima, the minimax regret has order $Φ_{n,k}(T)=\min\{\frac{n-k}{n}T,\frac{n-k}{k}\}$, $2\le k<n$. Under winner feedback, both arbitrary joint i.i.d. rewards and fixed sequences have minimax regret of order $R_{n,k}(T)=\frac{n-k}{n}\min\{T,\frac{n+T}{k},\sqrt{\frac{nT}{k}}\}$. Both laws have universal constants and anytime upper bounds. The first reduces regret to a pure coverage cost: same-round contrasts absorb the stability cost, and independence permits exact resampling whose gains fund sample advancement. The second adds a learning cost that becomes comparable to coverage at horizon $n$; beyond $nk$, numerical maxima improve over labels alone. The lower bound allows every adaptive action size.