Paper:
A Scale Free Algorithm for Stochastic Bandits with Bounded Kurtosis
Existing strategies for finite-armed stochastic bandits mostly depend on a parameter of scale that must be known in advance. Sometimes this is in the form of a bound on the payoffs, or the knowledge of a variance or subgaussian parameter. The notable exceptions are the analysis of Gaussian bandits with unknown mean and variance by Cowan et al. [2015]  and of uniform distributions with unknown support . The results derived in these specialised cases are generalised here to the non-parametric setup, where the learner knows only a bound on the kurtosis of the noise, which is a scale free measure of the extremity of outliers.

Review:
Rebuttal
--------
I read the author feedback. There was no discussion, but due to the consensus, the paper should be accepted.
Summary
-------
The article considers a variant of the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) algorithm for multi-armed bandit that is using the notion of kurtosis as well as median of means estimates for the mean and the variance of the considered distributions.
Detailed comments
-----------------
1) Table 1: I think the work by Burnetas and Katehakis regarding bandit lower bounds for general distributions deserves to be in this table.
2) It is nice to provide Theorem 7 and make explicit the lower bound in (special cases of) this setting.
3) The algorithm that is derived looks very natural in view of the discussion regarding the kurtosis.
One may observe that a bound kappa_0 on kappa is currently required by the algorithm, and I suggest you add some paragraph regarding this point:
Indeed on the one hand, a (naive) criticism is that people may not know a value kappa_0 in practice and thus one would now like to know what can be achieved when the kurtosis is unknown and we want to estimate it; This would then call for another assumption such as on higher order moments, and one may then continue asking similar questions for the novel assumption, and so on and so forth. 
On the other hand, the crucial fact about kurtosis is that unlike mean or variance, for many classes of distributions all distributions of a certain type share the same kurtosis. Thus this is rather a "class" dependent quantity than a distribution dependent quantity, and using the knowledge of kappa_0 \geq \kappa can be considered to be a weak assumption. I think this should be emphasized more.
4) Proof of Lemma 5: The proof is a little compact. I can see the missing steps; but for the sake of clarity, it may be nice to reformulate/expand slightly. (Applying Lemma 4 twice, first to the random variables Y_s, then to (Y_s-mu)^2, etc).
5) Proof of Lemma 6: end of page 4, first inequality: from (c), you can improve the factor 2 to 4/3  (1/ (1-1/4) instead of 1/(1-1/2))
Line 112 "while the last uses the definition..." and Lemma 4 as well?
With the 2/3 improvement, you should get \tilde \sigma_t^2 \leq 11/3 \sigma^2 + \tilde \sigma_t^2/3.
6) Without section 3, the paper would have been a little weak, since the proof techniques are extremely straightforward once we have the estimation errors of the median of means, which are known. Thus this section is welcomed.
7) Proof of Theorem 7: "Let Delta_\epsilon = \Delta_\epsilon + \epsilon" I guess it should be "Let Delta_\epsilon = \Delta + \epsilon".
8) There are some missing words on page 7.
9) Section 4:
i)Optimal constants. For the seek improvement, one should mimic the KL optimization, at least implicitly. I am not sure this can be achieved that easily.
Self-normalized processes would play a role in reducing the magnitude of the confidence bounds, I am not sure it will help beyond that.
ii) TS: I don't see any simple way to define a "kurtosis-based" prior/posterior. Can you elaborate on this point? Otherwise this seems like an empty paragraph and I suggest you remove it.
Decision:
--------
Overall, this is an article with a rather simple (a direct application of median of means confidence bounds for unknown mean and variance) but elegant idea, and the paper is nicely executed and very clear. I give a weak accept, not a clear accept only because most of the material is already known.