Improved Algorithms for Nash Welfare in Linear Bandits

Learning from human preference data is becoming a useful tool, from fine-tuning large language models to training reinforcement learning agents. However, in most scenarios, the model is trained on the average preference of all human evaluators, which, under large variations of preferences, can be unfair to minority groups. In this work, we consider fairness in dueling bandits, a standard framework for online learning from preference data. We assume that each user has a (potentially distinct) Condorcet winner, which is an arm preferred to every other arm. Using these user-specific Condorcet winners as reference points, we evaluate and score arms according to their performance relative to the corresponding winner. To promote fairness across heterogeneous users, we adopt the well-established Nash Social Welfare objective, which maximizes the product of user utilities, thereby inherently penalizing inequality and preventing the marginalization of any single user. Within this framework, we construct a hard instance to establish a regret lower bound of $Ω(T^{2/3}\min(K,D)^\frac{1}{3})$ for a time horizon $T$, $K$ arms, and $D$ users, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first result quantifying the cost of fairness in dueling bandits with heterogeneous preferences. We then present the Fair-Explore-Then-Commit and Fair-$ε$-Greedy algorithms with a Condorcet winner identification phase. We further derive their regret upper bounds that match the lower-bound dependence on $T$ up to logarithmic factors.

In bandit problems, standard regret-minimizing algorithms treat exploration as an amortized cost, which can expose early participants to unfair ex-ante losses in settings such as clinical trials. Recent work addresses this by evaluating the sequence of per-round expected rewards through the generalized $p$-mean, interpolating between utilitarian welfare ($p=1$), Nash welfare ($p\to0$), and Rawlsian fairness ($p\to-\infty$). Although tight guarantees are known for $p\ge0$, the strictly fair regime $q=-p>0$ remains unresolved because negative-power means are dominated by the smallest per-round rewards. For $σ$-sub-Gaussian rewards with nonnegative means, the best prior algorithm relied on uniform early exploration and achieved regret $O(k^{(q+1)/2}/\sqrt{T})$, while the only general lower bound was the classical $Ω(σ\sqrt{k/T})$. Thus it was unclear whether the extra dependence on $k$ was intrinsic to strict fairness or an artifact of uniform exploration. We close this gap by identifying the exact polynomial price of strict fairness. Using a needle-in-haystack construction, we prove an algorithm-independent lower bound $Ω(σ\sqrt{k^{\max(1,q)}/T})$; for $q>1$, this shows that the penalty $k^{q/2}$ is information-theoretically unavoidable. We then introduce \textsf{UCB-HARE} (Harmonic Anchored Rank Exploration), which replaces uniform exploration with an inverse-weighted harmonic rank schedule protected by a certified positive-mean anchor. Its regret is $\widetilde{O}(σ\sqrt{k^{\max(1,q)}/T})$, matching the lower bound up to logarithmic factors. Experiments on synthetic instances confirm that \textsf{UCB-HARE} improves over uniform-exploration baselines, with gains increasing as $q$ grows.

We study multi-objective multi-agent multi-armed bandits (MO-MA-MAB) under stochastic rewards, where agents observe heterogeneous reward vectors and communicate over time-varying graphs. We formulate this emerging problem setting to address \emph{efficient learning}, measured by Pareto regret, and incorporate \emph{fair learning} as an additional goal, captured via social welfare. To measure efficiency, we formulate Pareto regret and develop \textsc{Pareto UCB1 Gossip}, whose novel exploration radius explicitly separates statistical uncertainty in Pareto-based inference from consensus error. To express the fairness constraint, we formulate a Nash Social Welfare objective over preference-scalarized rewards and propose \textsc{Simulated NSW UCB Gossip}, which integrates preference-based reward simulation, gossip-based utility estimation, and UCB-style exploration. We prove that \textsc{Pareto UCB1 Gossip} achieves $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and an instance-independent rate of $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$, while \textsc{Simulated NSW UCB Gossip} achieves an instance-independent regret bound of $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4})$. This separation reveals the cost of imposing the fairness constraint to our efficiency objective: fairness limits information aggregation and slows convergence. Experiments show that our methods consistently outperform baselines, improving performance by approximately $100\%$ and $50\%$ in the efficiency and fairness settings, respectively.