mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Near-Optimal Privacy-Preserving Learning for Max-Min Fair Multi-Agent Bandits

arXiv 2306.04498 ↗First posted 7 Jun 2023cs.LG cs.CY cs.DCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study fair multi-agent multi-armed bandit learning under collision-only coordination. Agents cannot communicate explicitly during learning and observe only their own rewards and whether collisions occur when several agents access the same arm. The goal is to learn a max-min fair allocation while keeping each agent's reward samples and empirical reward estimates local. We propose a fully distributed algorithm for bounded rewards with unknown support, achieving regret O!left(N3 f(log T)log Tright), where f is any nondecreasing diverging function satisfying f(k-1)/f(k)→ 1. The algorithm combines distributed agent ordering, cumulative round-robin exploration, endpoint-revalidated warm-started bisection, and a collision-based distributed auction for threshold-feasibility tests. Unlike leader-based optimal algorithms, no agent collects the reward observations, empirical estimates, or preferences of the others. Thus, the protocol preserves reward privacy in the operational sense of avoiding reward sharing, while coordinating only through collision outcomes. Compared with previous privacy-preserving algorithms for max--min fair bandits, which have exponential dependence on the number of agents, our method achieves polynomial N3 dependence while retaining near-logarithmic dependence on T. The analysis uses concentration of cumulative empirical estimates and stability of endpoint-revalidated bisection. Simulations confirm the predicted scaling with horizon, number of agents, and max--min gap across representative numerical settings.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2023.

Builds on

18 of 52 references.

References · 18

  1. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 167
  2. 2016Fairness in Reinforcement Learningcited by 93
  3. 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 54
  4. 2018SIC-MMAB: Synchronisation Involves Communication in Multiplayer Multi-Armed Banditscited by 46
  5. 2019Group Retention when Using Machine Learning in Sequential Decision Making: the Interplay between User Dynamics and Fairnesscited by 38
  6. 2019The True Sample Complexity of Identifying Good Armscited by 37
  7. 2019A Practical Algorithm for Multiplayer Bandits when Arm Means Vary Among Playerscited by 25
  8. 2014Concurrent bandits and cognitive radio networkscited by 23
  9. 2015On Regret-Optimal Learning in Decentralized Multi-player Multi-armed Banditscited by 20
  10. 2019Individual Regret in Cooperative Nonstochastic Multi-Armed Banditscited by 20
  11. 2020My Fair Bandit: Distributed Learning of Max-Min Fairness with Multi-player Banditscited by 16
  12. 2019Non-Stochastic Multi-Player Multi-Armed Bandits: Optimal Rate With Collision Information, Sublinear Withoutcited by 14
6 more
  1. 2018Game of Thrones: Fully Distributed Learning for Multi-Player Banditscited by 12
  2. 2019Multi-Player Bandits: The Adversarial Casecited by 11
  3. 2019Distributed Learning for Channel Allocation Over a Shared Spectrumcited by 8
  4. 2013Fully distributed optimal channel assignment for open spectrum accesscited by 3
  5. 2013Expected time complexity of the auction algorithm and the push relabel algorithm for maximal bipartite matching on random graphscited by 2
  6. 2017The Effect of Communication on Noncooperative Multiplayer Multi-Armed Bandit Problemscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.