Adaptive experiments use bandit algorithms to favor interventions with higher expected rewards. However, decision-makers also require reliable inference on current treatment effects: differences between intervention and reference-arm mean rewards at the present time, rather than historical averages. These objectives conflict: reward maximization favors better interventions, whereas current-effect inference requires continued exploration of potentially suboptimal interventions as outcomes change over time. We characterize this tradeoff for K-arm bandits with Hölder-smooth mean rewards of exponent β∈(0,1] and constant L. Requiring high-probability simultaneous coverage of all current effects by confidence intervals of width at most w, we establish matching minimax bounds, up to logarithmic factors, on expected dynamic regret. Over horizon T, our algorithm TRACE (Tracking Rewards and Current Effects) achieves regret of order Oβ(KT+Kβ/(2β+1)L1/(2β+1)T(β+1)/(2β+1)+Kw−2(1+L1/βw−1/β)), where the notation hides logarithms and constants depending only on β. This regret--precision tradeoff separates reward-learning regret from the cost of refreshing current-effect estimates, which remains unavoidable even when one arm is uniformly optimal. An empirical-Bernstein e-process extension adapts exploration to realized prediction errors while preserving worst-case guarantees. When within-block drift is negligible relative to sampling error, all observations, including reward-learning observations, can be reused for asymptotically normal pointwise inference and stronger local stationarity yields local asymptotic efficiency. Finally, we show that regret constraints can prevent honest adaptation to unknown smoothness and support our theory with extensive numerical experiments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Minimax regret–precision tradeoff. Narrower confidence intervals require more frequent exploration and therefore increase regret. The free-inference threshold wfree(T) separates the inference-limited regime from the regime where current-effect inference is essentially free at the minimax regret scale.
Figure 2: Overview of TRACE . The horizon is partitioned into consecutive blocks B1,…,BJ . At the beginning of each block, TRACE samples all arms in round-robin order to collect fresh observations for current-effect inference. On the remaining rounds, it runs EXP3 for reward learning. Inference in block Bj , j≥2 , uses estimates constructed from the preceding block, allowing the procedure to maintain up-to-date confidence intervals while continuing to optimize reward.
Figure 3: Synthetic experiments. Left: Dynamic regret as the target width w varies. Middle: Total inference samples, with w−3 and w−2 reference rates. Right: Samples required per arm and block as prediction RMSE increases.
Figure 4: Synthetic local-stationarity experiment. Left: Coverage of the nominal 95% confidence interval under the three drift regimes. Right: Average confidence-interval width using all observations versus reserved inference observations only.
Figure 5: Yahoo! R6B experiment. Left: Current click-through-rate effects relative to Article 1. Middle: Dynamic regret versus current-effect RMSE for TRACE and Adaptive TRACE , with restarted EXP3 and SW-UCB as reward-only baselines. Right: Fraction of rounds used for inference as the maximum budget m increases.
Figure 6: ZOZOTOWN experiment. Left: Number of observations required for inference as a function of prediction RMSE. Right: Available observations and observations used by Adaptive TRACE with the Beta (1,1) predictor across the five selected items.
Figure 7: HeartSteps experiment. Left: Time-varying proximal treatment effect estimated using WCLS, together with weekly randomized contrasts. Middle: Empirical coverage of the all-observation Wald interval as a function of the local-drift index Γh . Numbers indicate the local window length in days. Right: Empirical variance relative to the all-observation efficiency bound, comparing the all-observation estimator with inference based on a 25% reserved subset.
Estimand
Estimate
95% CI
p -value
Marginal proximal effect
0.1312
[−0.0058,0.2682]
0.0599
Effect at study day 0
0.5074
[0.2009,0.8140]
0.0020
Change in effect per day
−0.01848
[−0.03090,−0.00607]
0.00479
Table 1: WCLS estimates for HeartSteps.
Window
Γh
Coverage
Variance ratio
Reserved variance ratio
1 day
0.026
94.6%
0.994
4.14
2 days
0.075
94.5%
1.004
4.16
3 days
0.138
94.7%
1.001
4.13
5 days
0.295
94.4%
1.006
4.00
7 days
0.511
94.0%
0.978
4.07
10 days
0.906
91.4%
1.006
4.02
Table 2: HeartSteps local-inference results. Empirical 95% coverage and variance relative to the all-observation efficiency bound, averaged over the five target days.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
TRACE
Adaptive TRACE
m
Inference fraction
Regret
Effect RMSE
Inference fraction
Regret
Effect RMSE
25
2.5%
1353.8
0.0578
2.5%
1354.3
0.0574
50
5.0%
1363.5
0.0407
5.0%
1349.0
0.0410
100
10.0%
1387.3
0.0290
9.9%
1385.8
0.0295
200
20.0%
1430.6
0.0207
15.0%
1400.8
0.0231
400
40.0%
1506.8
0.0147
22.2%
1432.0
0.0191
Appendix
Table 3: Yahoo! R6B results. Dynamic regret, current-effect RMSE, and fraction of rounds used for inference across inferential budgets. Adaptive TRACE uses the Beta (1,1) -smoothed historical click-through rate as its predictable reward forecast. Results are averaged over 200 Monte Carlo replications.
Item
Available
Observations used
Prediction RMSE
Reduction
18
5,312
3,441
0.0628
35.2%
30
5,156
3,012
0.0462
41.6%
29
5,584
2,705
0.0354
51.6%
24
5,486
3,685
0.0687
32.8%
43
5,146
2,892
0.0442
43.8%
Mean
5,336.8
3,147.0
0.0514
41.0%
Appendix
Table 4: ZOZOTOWN results. Prediction RMSE and number of randomized observations required by Adaptive TRACE for each selected item. The predictable reward forecast is the Beta (1,1) -smoothed historical click-through rate computed using only observations preceding the current impression.
Week
Decisions
Treated
Control
Estimate
95% CI
1
960
576
384
0.621
[0.298,0.945]
2
1,061
635
426
0.015
[−0.391,0.421]
3
1,037
603
434
0.104
[−0.257,0.466]
4
1,049
608
441
0.055
[−0.319,0.428]
5
1,034
624
410
−0.163
[−0.567,0.241]
6
920
548
372
0.098
[−0.265,0.461]
Appendix
Table 5: Weekly randomized contrasts in HeartSteps. Confidence intervals use participant-clustered standard errors.
Figure 8: Studentized local inference in HeartSteps. Quantiles of the studentized all-observation estimator against standard normal quantiles for a locally stable three-day window and a fourteen-day window with larger temporal drift. The three-day estimator closely follows the standard normal reference, while the fourteen-day distribution is shifted by the accumulated temporal bias.
Non-Stationary Bandits study sequential choices when rewards or constraints change over time, requiring learners to balance exploration with adaptation.
School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · School of Management and Economics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen