Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper formalizes the problem of choosing a learning objective in bandit settings with noncompliance, where the learner's recommendation differs from the actual treatment. It identifies conditions under which recommendation and treatment objectives align and demonstrates scenarios where recommendation welfare surpasses measurable treatment policy value due to downstream actor's private information. The authors introduce BRACE, a parameter-free phase-doubling algorithm for finite-context square-IV problems, providing simultaneous policy-value validity and identification of optimal recommendation and treatment policies.
Recommendation welfare can provably exceed any learner-measurable treatment policy when downstream actors possess private information, forcing a critical re-evaluation of learning objectives in bandit settings with noncompliance.
Bandits with noncompliance separate the learner's recommendation from the treatment actually delivered, so the learning target itself must be chosen. A platform may care about recommendation welfare in the current mediated workflow, treatment learning for a future direct-control regime, or anytime-valid uncertainty for one of those targets. These objectives need not agree. We formalize this objective-choice problem, identify the direct-control regime in which recommendation and treatment objectives collapse, and show by example that recommendation welfare can strictly exceed every learner-measurable treatment policy when downstream actors use private information. For finite-context square-IV problems we propose BRACE, a parameter-free phase-doubling algorithm that performs IV inversion only after matrix certification and otherwise returns full-range but honest structural intervals. BRACE delivers simultaneous policy-value validity, fixed-gap identification of the operationally optimal recommendation policy, and fixed-gap identification of the structurally optimal treatment policy under contextual homogeneity and invertibility. We complement the theory with a finite-context empirical benchmark spanning direct control, mediated present-versus-future tradeoffs, weak identification, homogeneity failure, and rectangular overidentification. The experiments show that safety appears as regret on easy problems, as abstention and wide valid intervals under weak identification, as a reason to prefer recommendation welfare under homogeneity failure, and as tighter structural uncertainty when extra instruments are available. For rich contexts, we also derive an orthogonal score whose conditional bias factorizes into compliance-model and outcome-model errors, clarifying what must be stabilized for anytime-valid semiparametric IV inference.
