Price of Fairness in Bandits: A Tight Minimax Characterization
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 regim
Record details
Published: 15 July 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Healthcare
Retrieved: 16 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Adaptive Filtering of the KV Cache: Diagnosing and Correcting Structural-Role Bias in LLM Inference
arXiv · 14 July 2026
Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study
JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) · 15 July 2026
Auditing Fairness-Privacy Trade-offs: Subpopulation-Level Effects of Fairness-Enhancing Algorithms
arXiv · 16 July 2026
Demographically-Conditioned Synthetic Medical Images for Bias Mitigation and Bias Detection in Disease Classifiers
arXiv · 16 July 2026
Hindsight: Similarity-Based Analytics for Mars Rover Drive Retrieval
arXiv cs.HC · 17 July 2026
Equity-Oriented Design Processes and Evaluation of Digital Health Technologies for Black Communities Beyond Usability: Scoping Review
JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) · 20 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (15 July 2026), “Price of Fairness in Bandits: A Tight Minimax Characterization,” evidence record 10604, https://ethics.ai/record/10604 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.