mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Price of Incentivizing Exploration: A Characterization via Thompson Sampling and Sample Complexity

arXiv 2002.00558 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2020cs.GT cs.DS cs.LGcited by 26

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider incentivized exploration: a version of multi-armed bandits where the choice of arms is controlled by self-interested agents, and the algorithm can only issue recommendations. The algorithm controls the flow of information, and the information asymmetry can incentivize the agents to explore. Prior work achieves optimal regret rates up to multiplicative factors that become arbitrarily large depending on the Bayesian priors, and scale exponentially in the number of arms. A more basic problem of sampling each arm once runs into similar factors. We focus on the price of incentives: the loss in performance, broadly construed, incurred for the sake of incentive-compatibility. We prove that Thompson Sampling, a standard bandit algorithm, is incentive-compatible if initialized with sufficiently many data points. The performance loss due to incentives is therefore limited to the initial rounds when these data points are collected. The problem is largely reduced to that of sample complexity: how many rounds are needed? We address this question, providing matching upper and lower bounds and instantiating them in various corollaries. Typically, the optimal sample complexity is polynomial in the number of arms and exponential in the "strength of beliefs".

Key facts. Cited by 26 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 6; 2024: 8; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

26 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2022Competition, Alignment, and Equilibria in Digital Marketplacescited by 17
  2. 2021Bayesian Persuasion for Algorithmic Recoursecited by 14
  3. 2024Clickbait vs. Quality: How Engagement-Based Optimization Shapes the Content Landscape in Online Platformscited by 13
  4. 2024Incentivized Learning in Principal-Agent Bandit Gamescited by 13
  5. 2021Exploration and Incentives in Reinforcement Learningcited by 11
  6. 2023Strategic Apple Tastingcited by 10
  7. 2022Incentivizing Combinatorial Bandit Explorationcited by 9
  8. 2023Learning with Exposure Constraints in Recommendation Systemscited by 8
  9. 2023Bandit Social Learning: Exploration under Myopic Behaviorcited by 6
  10. 2022Incentive-Aware Recommender Systems in Two-Sided Marketscited by 5
  11. 2023Incentivizing Exploration with Linear Contexts and Combinatorial Actionscited by 5
  12. 2024Incentivized Exploration of Non-Stationary Stochastic Banditscited by 3
14 more
  1. 2024Incentivized Exploration via Filtered Posterior Samplingcited by 2
  2. 2024Improved Online Learning Algorithms for CTR Prediction in Ad Auctionscited by 2
  3. 2025Incentivized Lipschitz Banditscited by 2
  4. 2024Misalignment, Learning, and Ranking: Harnessing Users Limited Attentioncited by 1
  5. 2024Incentivized Exploration with Stochastic Covariates: A Two-Stage Mechanism Design for Recommender Systemcited by 1
  6. 2024Exploration and Persuasioncited by 1
  7. 2025Truthful mechanisms for linear bandit games with private contextscited by 1
  8. 2023Incentivized Collaboration in Active Learningcited by 0
  9. 2023Incentive-Aware Synthetic Control: Accurate Counterfactual Estimation via Incentivized Explorationcited by 0
  10. 2025Geometry Meets Incentives: Sample-Efficient Incentivized Exploration with Linear Contextscited by 0
  11. 2026Prior-Agnostic Incentive-Compatible Explorationcited by 0
  12. 2026Learning from Local Walks on Dynamic Graphs with Bandit Feedbackcited by 0
  13. 2026Thompson Sampling Is 2-Competitive for Mistakescited by 0
  14. 2026On Incentivized Exploration beyond Bayesianism and Full-Informationcited by 0