Multiplayer Bandit Learning, from Competition to Cooperation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The stochastic multi-armed bandit model captures the tradeoff between exploration and exploitation. We study the effects of competition and cooperation on this tradeoff. Suppose there are k arms and two players, Alice and Bob. In every round, each player pulls an arm, receives the resulting reward, and observes the choice of the other player but not their reward. Alice's utility is GammaA + λ GammaB (and similarly for Bob), where GammaA is Alice's total reward and λ ∈ [-1, 1] is a cooperation parameter. At λ = -1 the players are competing in a zero-sum game, at λ = 1, they are fully cooperating, and at λ = 0, they are neutral: each player's utility is their own reward. The model is related to the economics literature on strategic experimentation, where usually players observe each other's rewards. With discount factor β, the Gittins index reduces the one-player problem to the comparison between a risky arm, with a prior μ, and a predictable arm, with success probability p. The value of p where the player is indifferent between the arms is the Gittins index g = g(μ,β) > m, where m is the mean of the risky arm. We show that competing players explore less than a single player: there is p^* ∈ (m, g) so that for all p > p^*, the players stay at the predictable arm. However, the players are not myopic: they still explore for some p > m. On the other hand, cooperating players explore more than a single player. We also show that neutral players learn from each other, receiving strictly higher total rewards than they would playing alone, for all p∈ (p^*, g), where p^* is the threshold from the competing case. Finally, we show that competing and neutral players eventually settle on the same arm in every Nash equilibrium, while this can fail for cooperating players.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2021Federated Multi-armed Bandits with Personalizationcited by 62
- 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 30
- 2022A survey on multi-player banditscited by 19
- 2022Competition, Alignment, and Equilibria in Digital Marketplacescited by 17
- 2024Trustworthy Distributed AI Systems: Robustness, Privacy, and Governancecited by 14
- 2023Competing for Shareable Arms in Multi-Player Multi-Armed Banditscited by 6
- 2025Multiplayer Information Asymmetric Contextual Banditscited by 3
- 2024Optimistic Thompson Sampling for No-Regret Learning in Unknown Gamescited by 1
- 2024PPA-Game: Characterizing and Learning Competitive Dynamics Among Online Content Creatorscited by 0
- 2025Competitive Multi-armed Bandit Games for Resource Sharingcited by 0
- 2025Bayesian Decision Making around Expertscited by 0
- 2026DCM Bandits: Multiplayer Information Asymmetric Cascading Bandits for Multiple Clickscited by 0
- 2026DCM Bandits: Multiplayer Information Asymmetric Cascading Bandits for Multiple Clicks12 Aug 2026
- 2025Bayesian Decision Making around Experts9 Oct 2025
- 2025Competitive Multi-armed Bandit Games for Resource Sharing26 Mar 2025
- 2025Multiplayer Information Asymmetric Contextual Bandits11 Mar 2025
- 2024PPA-Game: Characterizing and Learning Competitive Dynamics Among Online Content Creators22 Mar 2024
- 2024Optimistic Thompson Sampling for No-Regret Learning in Unknown Games7 Feb 2024
- 2024Trustworthy Distributed AI Systems: Robustness, Privacy, and Governance2 Feb 2024
- 2023Competing for Shareable Arms in Multi-Player Multi-Armed Bandits30 May 2023
- 2022A survey on multi-player bandits29 Nov 2022
- 2022Competition, Alignment, and Equilibria in Digital Marketplaces30 Aug 2022
- 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Markets12 Mar 2021
- 2021Federated Multi-armed Bandits with Personalization25 Feb 2021