Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour

Minimax Optimal Regret for Causal Logistic Bandits with Counterfactual Fairness

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLby Junhyuk Huh ()1 min read3 · 1 read
AI summary · grok-4.7Summaries by Vani AI

The paper proves matching minimax regret bounds for causal logistic bandits under counterfactual fairness.

The paper studies causal logistic bandits in which factual and counterfactual feature maps share an unknown logistic reward parameter, while the learner sees only factual rewards. It shows that some coverage condition is necessary, because otherwise factually indistinguishable environments can force linear expected joint loss. Under a weaker full-rank condition, the authors identify an information scale V-star and prove a matching lower bound of order (V-star times the minimum of log K and d) to the one-third times T to the two-thirds. Explore-then-exploit and adaptive algorithms achieve the same leading dependence, up to logarithmic factors, while controlling cumulative fairness violations.

Key facts
  • Without coverage, expected joint loss can scale linearly with T.
  • Lower bound scales as T to the two-thirds times V-star to the one-third.
  • Upper bounds match the leading dependence up to logarithmic factors.
  • Algorithms bound regret and cumulative counterfactual fairness violations.
Explain this AI news with Vani AIWhat was announced, what is new and why it matters, in a new chat

From the original article

1 min read at arxiv.org

We study causal logistic bandits with counterfactual fairness constraints. The causal structure is given through known factual and counterfactual feature maps that share an unknown logistic reward parameter, but the learner observes only factual rewards. Consequently, the directions determining counterfactual feasibility need not be identifiable from the available feedback.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

By Junhyuk Huh · arxiv.org

Read the full article at arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.