Characterizing Bias in Post-Bandit Inference under Index Algorithms

We study the $\textit{single-index bandit}$ problem, where rewards depend on an unknown one-dimensional projection of high-dimensional contexts through an unknown reward function. This model extends linear and generalized linear bandits to a nonparametric setting, and is particularly relevant when the reward function is not known in advance. While optimal regret guarantees are known for monotone reward functions, the general non-monotone case remains poorly understood, with the best known bound being $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(T^{3/4})$ (under standard boundedness and Lipschitz assumptions on the reward function [Kang et al., 2025]). We close this gap by establishing the optimal regret for general single-index bandits. We propose a simple two-phase algorithm, namely, Zoomed Single Index Bandit with Upper Confidence Bound ($\texttt{ZoomSIB-UCB}$), that first estimates the projection direction via a normalized Stein estimator, and then reduces the problem to a one-dimensional bandit using discretization and finally use UCB. This approach achieves a regret of $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(T^{2/3})$, and improves significantly upon prior work without any additional assumptions. We also prove a matching minimax lower bound of $\tildeΩ(T^{2/3})$, showing that the upper bound is essentially tight. Our upper and lower bounds together provide a sharp characterization of the regret in single-index bandits. Moreover, the empirical results further demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach.

Multi-arm bandit algorithms are increasingly used in online platforms, clinical trials, and social science experiments, but valid statistical inference on their performance remains an open challenge. After deploying bandits, a natural question is whether one can construct a confidence interval for its mean reward and assess whether it reliably outperforms a baseline policy. The total reward achieved in any single bandit deployment is random, and deploying a bandit twice on the same population typically yields different reward trajectories due to stochastic rewards. Standard statistical inference methods cannot be used because bandit algorithms introduce complex dependencies in the collected data, which violate the i.i.d. assumption underlying many classical approaches. Moreover, existing inference methods for adaptively collected data only apply to estimands that do not depend on the data-collection algorithm (such as the mean reward under a fixed action). We propose Bandit Simulation for Inference (BSI), a framework that fits a simulator of the bandit environment from observed data--either on-policy or off-policy--and uses it to estimate the mean reward under any evaluation policy, including adaptive blackbox algorithms. BSI formally propagates uncertainty in the estimated simulator parameters into the confidence interval construction. Furthermore, for BSI to be valid, it requires only weak exploration assumptions on the behavior policy and avoids importance weighting. We prove that BSI yields asymptotically valid confidence intervals, and demonstrate empirically that it maintains nominal coverage in settings where standard off-policy evaluation methods fail.

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.