p-Mean Regret for Stochastic Bandits
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In this work, we extend the concept of the p-mean welfare objective from social choice theory (Moulin 2004) to study p-mean regret in stochastic multi-armed bandit problems. The p-mean regret, defined as the difference between the optimal mean among the arms and the p-mean of the expected rewards, offers a flexible framework for evaluating bandit algorithms, enabling algorithm designers to balance fairness and efficiency by adjusting the parameter p. Our framework encompasses both average cumulative regret and Nash regret as special cases. We introduce a simple, unified UCB-based algorithm (Explore-Then-UCB) that achieves novel p-mean regret bounds. Our algorithm consists of two phases: a carefully calibrated uniform exploration phase to initialize sample means, followed by the UCB1 algorithm of Auer, Cesa-Bianchi, and Fischer (2002). Under mild assumptions, we prove that our algorithm achieves a p-mean regret bound of tildeOleft(√frackT^frac12|p|right) for all p ≤ -1, where k represents the number of arms and T the time horizon. When -1<p<0, we achieve a regret bound of tildeOleft(√frack1.5T^frac12right). For the range 0< p ≤ 1, we achieve a p-mean regret scaling as tildeOleft(√frackTright), which matches the previously established lower bound up to logarithmic factors (Auer et al. 1995). This result stems from the fact that the p-mean regret of any algorithm is at least its average cumulative regret for p ≤ 1. In the case of Nash regret (the limit as p approaches zero), our unified approach differs from prior work (Barman et al. 2023), which requires a new Nash Confidence Bound algorithm. Notably, we achieve the same regret bound up to constant factors using our more general method.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Dec 2024.
Builds on
10 of 22 references.
References · 10
- 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
- 2019Achieving Fairness in the Stochastic Multi-armed Bandit Problemcited by 77
- 2020Fair Algorithms for Multi-Agent Multi-Armed Banditscited by 41
- 2013Multi-Armed Bandits for Intelligent Tutoring Systemscited by 21
- 2021Universal and Tight Online Algorithms for Generalized-Mean Welfarecited by 12
- 2023Nash Regret Guarantees for Linear Banditscited by 9
- 2020Tight Approximation Algorithms for p-Mean Welfare Under Subadditive Valuationscited by 8
- 2024No-Regret Learning for Fair Multi-Agent Social Welfare Optimizationcited by 7
- 2024On the Fairness of Normalized p-Means for Allocating Goods and Chorescited by 6
- 2021Tractable Fragments of the Maximum Nash Welfare Problemcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025Revisiting Social Welfare in Bandits: UCB is (Nearly) All You Needcited by 3
- 2025DP-NCB: Privacy Preserving Fair Banditscited by 2
- 2026Improved Algorithms for Nash Welfare in Linear Banditscited by 1
- 2025Multi-agent Multi-armed Bandits with Minimum Reward Guarantee Fairnesscited by 0
- 2026Online Social Welfare Function-based Resource Allocationcited by 0
- 2026Price of Fairness in Bandits: A Tight Minimax Characterizationcited by 0
- 2026Price of Fairness in Bandits: A Tight Minimax Characterization15 Jul 2026
- 2026Online Social Welfare Function-based Resource Allocation1 Feb 2026
- 2026Improved Algorithms for Nash Welfare in Linear Bandits30 Jan 2026
- 2025Revisiting Social Welfare in Bandits: UCB is (Nearly) All You Need24 Oct 2025
- 2025DP-NCB: Privacy Preserving Fair Bandits5 Aug 2025
- 2025Multi-agent Multi-armed Bandits with Minimum Reward Guarantee Fairness21 Feb 2025