Design Experiments to Compare Multi-armed Bandit Algorithms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Online platforms routinely compare multi-armed bandit algorithms, such as UCB and Thompson Sampling, to select the best-performing policy. Unlike standard A/B tests for static treatments, each run of a bandit algorithm over T users produces only one trajectory, because the algorithm's decisions depend on all past interactions. Reliable inference therefore demands many independent restarts of the algorithm, making experimentation costly and delaying deployment decisions. We propose Artificial Replay (AR) as a new experimental design for this problem. AR first runs one policy and records its trajectory. When the second policy is executed, it reuses a recorded reward whenever it selects an action the first policy already took, and queries the real environment only otherwise. We develop a new analytical framework for this design and prove three key properties of the resulting estimator: it is unbiased; it requires only T + o(T) user interactions instead of 2T for a run of the treatment and control policies, nearly halving the experimental cost when both policies have sub-linear regret; and its variance grows sub-linearly in T, whereas the estimator from a na"ive design has a linearly-growing variance. Numerical experiments with UCB, Thompson Sampling, and ε-greedy policies confirm these theoretical gains.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.
Builds on
24 of 37 references.
References · 24
- 2018More Robust Doubly Robust Off-policy Evaluationcited by 141
- 2016Optimal and Adaptive Off-policy Evaluation in Contextual Banditscited by 111
- 2021Off-Policy Evaluation via Adaptive Weighting with Data from Contextual Banditscited by 40
- 2021Proximal Reinforcement Learning: Efficient Off-Policy Evaluation in Partially Observed Markov Decision Processescited by 40
- 2020Experimental Design in Two-Sided Platforms: An Analysis of Biascited by 39
- 2020Design and Analysis of Switchback Experimentscited by 37
- 2017Why Adaptively Collected Data Have Negative Bias and How to Correct for Itcited by 36
- 2021A Closer Look at the Worst-case Behavior of Multi-armed Bandit Algorithmscited by 29
- 2022Markovian Interference in Experimentscited by 22
- 2021Policy Learning with Adaptively Collected Datacited by 21
- 2022Switchback Experiments under Geometric Mixingcited by 17
- 2021The Fragility of Optimized Bandit Algorithmscited by 15
12 more
- 2021Weak Signal Asymptotics for Sequentially Randomized Experimentscited by 13
- 2022Artificial Replay: A Meta-Algorithm for Harnessing Historical Data in Banditscited by 12
- 2024Data-Driven Switchback Experiments: Theoretical Tradeoffs and Empirical Bayes Designscited by 11
- 2023Reducing Symbiosis Bias Through Better A/B Tests of Recommendation Algorithmscited by 8
- 2023Regret Distribution in Stochastic Bandits: Optimal Trade-off between Expectation and Tail Riskcited by 7
- 2025Statistical Tractability of Off-policy Evaluation of History-dependent Policies in POMDPscited by 7
- 2024Experimental Design For Causal Inference Through An Optimization Lenscited by 6
- 2025Choosing the Better Bandit Algorithm under Data Sharing: When Do A/B Experiments Work?cited by 4
- 2021Debiasing Samples from Online Learning Using Bootstrapcited by 3
- 2023Tackling Interference Induced by Data Training Loops in A/B Tests: A Weighted Training Approachcited by 3
- 2024Improving the Estimation of Lifetime Effects in A/B Testing via Treatment Localitycited by 2
- 2026Bandit Allocational Instabilitycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.