Thompson Sampling for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The problem of two-sided matching markets has a wide range of real-world applications and has been extensively studied in the literature. A line of recent works have focused on the problem setting where the preferences of one-side market participants are unknown a priori and are learned by iteratively interacting with the other side of participants. All these works are based on explore-then-commit (ETC) and upper confidence bound (UCB) algorithms, two common strategies in multi-armed bandits (MAB). Thompson sampling (TS) is another popular approach, which attracts lots of attention due to its easier implementation and better empirical performances. In many problems, even when UCB and ETC-type algorithms have already been analyzed, researchers are still trying to study TS for its benefits. However, the convergence analysis of TS is much more challenging and remains open in many problem settings. In this paper, we provide the first regret analysis for TS in the new setting of iterative matching markets. Extensive experiments demonstrate the practical advantages of the TS-type algorithm over the ETC and UCB-type baselines.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2022.
Builds on
9 of 53 references.
References · 9
- 2018Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Semi-Banditscited by 78
- 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 56
- 2020Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Marketscited by 46
- 2020Statistical Efficiency of Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Semi-Banditscited by 31
- 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 30
- 2020Learning Strategies in Decentralized Matching Markets under Uncertain Preferencescited by 14
- 2021Learning in Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Marketscited by 12
- 2020Combinatorial Pure Exploration of Dueling Banditcited by 8
- 2021The Hardness Analysis of Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Semi-bandits with Greedy Oraclecited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 17
- 2022Decentralized, Communication- and Coordination-free Learning in Structured Matching Marketscited by 11
- 2024Improved Bandits in Many-to-one Matching Markets with Incentive Compatibilitycited by 7
- 2024Putting Gale & Shapley to Work: Guaranteeing Stability Through Learningcited by 7
- 2023Two-sided Competing Matching Recommendation Markets With Quota and Complementary Preferences Constraintscited by 5
- 2022Competing Bandits in Time Varying Matching Marketscited by 3
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertaintycited by 2
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorshipcited by 1
- 2026Regret Analysis of Sleeping Competing Banditscited by 1
- 2025Bandits with Single-Peaked Preferences and Limited Resourcescited by 0
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertainty6 Jul 2026
- 2026Regret Analysis of Sleeping Competing Bandits20 Mar 2026
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorship7 Dec 2025
- 2025Bandits with Single-Peaked Preferences and Limited Resources10 Oct 2025
- 2024Putting Gale & Shapley to Work: Guaranteeing Stability Through Learning6 Oct 2024
- 2024Improved Bandits in Many-to-one Matching Markets with Incentive Compatibility3 Jan 2024
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets20 Jul 2023
- 2023Two-sided Competing Matching Recommendation Markets With Quota and Complementary Preferences Constraints24 Jan 2023
- 2022Competing Bandits in Time Varying Matching Markets21 Oct 2022
- 2022Decentralized, Communication- and Coordination-free Learning in Structured Matching Markets6 Jun 2022