mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Mitigating Disparity while Maximizing Reward: Tight Anytime Guarantee for Improving Bandits

arXiv 2208.09254 ↗First posted 19 Aug 2022cs.LG cs.AIcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study the Improving Multi-Armed Bandit (IMAB) problem, where the reward obtained from an arm increases with the number of pulls it receives. This model provides an elegant abstraction for many real-world problems in domains such as education and employment, where decisions about the distribution of opportunities can affect the future capabilities of communities and the disparity between them. A decision-maker in such settings must consider the impact of her decisions on future rewards in addition to the standard objective of maximizing her cumulative reward at any time. In many of these applications, the time horizon is unknown to the decision-maker beforehand, which motivates the study of the IMAB problem in the technically more challenging horizon-unaware setting. We study the tension that arises between two seemingly conflicting objectives in the horizon-unaware setting: a) maximizing the cumulative reward at any time based on current rewards of the arms, and b) ensuring that arms with better long-term rewards get sufficient opportunities even if they initially have low rewards. We show that, surprisingly, the two objectives are aligned with each other in this setting. Our main contribution is an anytime algorithm for the IMAB problem that achieves the best possible cumulative reward while ensuring that the arms reach their true potential given sufficient time. Our algorithm mitigates the initial disparity due to lack of opportunity and continues pulling an arm till it stops improving. We prove the optimality of our algorithm by showing that a) any algorithm for the IMAB problem, no matter how utilitarian, must suffer Omega(T) policy regret and Omega(k) competitive ratio with respect to the optimal offline policy, and b) the competitive ratio of our algorithm is O(k).

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2022.

Builds on

20 of 64 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  3. 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 183
  4. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
  5. 2016Fairness in Reinforcement Learningcited by 93
  6. 2019Achieving Fairness in the Stochastic Multi-armed Bandit Problemcited by 77
  7. 2018Adversarial Bandits with Knapsackscited by 73
  8. 2019Combinatorial Sleeping Bandits with Fairness Constraintscited by 68
  9. 2017Rotting Banditscited by 57
  10. 2019Algorithms for Fairness in Sequential Decision Makingcited by 53
  11. 2019On the Long-term Impact of Algorithmic Decision Policies: Effort Unfairness and Feature Segregation through Social Learningcited by 48
  12. 2021Fairness of Exposure in Stochastic Banditscited by 42
8 more
  1. 2019Fair Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits: Theory and Experimentscited by 41
  2. 2020Fair Algorithms for Multi-Agent Multi-Armed Banditscited by 41
  3. 2019What does it mean to solve the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systemscited by 38
  4. 2020Online Learning with Vector Costs and Bandits with Knapsackscited by 20
  5. 2015A Tale of Two Metrics: Simultaneous Bounds on Competitiveness and Regretcited by 17
  6. 2020Contextual Blocking Banditscited by 11
  7. 2021Long-Term Resource Allocation Fairness in Average Markov Decision Process (AMDP) Environmentcited by 6
  8. 2021Addressing the Long-term Impact of ML Decisions via Policy Regretcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

8 papers.