Improved Bandits in Many-to-one Matching Markets with Incentive Compatibility
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Two-sided matching markets have been widely studied in the literature due to their rich applications. Since participants are usually uncertain about their preferences, online algorithms have recently been adopted to learn them through iterative interactions. An existing work initiates the study of this problem in a many-to-one setting with responsiveness. However, their results are far from optimal and lack guarantees of incentive compatibility. We first extend an existing algorithm for the one-to-one setting to this more general setting and show it achieves a near-optimal bound for player-optimal regret. Nevertheless, due to the substantial requirement for collaboration, a single player's deviation could lead to a huge increase in its own cumulative rewards and a linear regret for others. In this paper, we aim to enhance the regret bound in many-to-one markets while ensuring incentive compatibility. We first propose the adaptively explore-then-deferred-acceptance (AETDA) algorithm for responsiveness setting and derive an upper bound for player-optimal stable regret while demonstrating its guarantee of incentive compatibility. To the best of our knowledge, it constitutes the first polynomial player-optimal guarantee in matching markets that offers such robust assurances without known Delta, where Delta is some preference gap among players and arms. We also consider broader substitutable preferences, one of the most general conditions to ensure the existence of a stable matching and cover responsiveness. We devise an online DA (ODA) algorithm and establish an upper bound for the player-pessimal stable regret for this setting.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2024.
Builds on
10 of 32 references.
References · 10
- 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 54
- 2016On Explore-Then-Commit Strategiescited by 46
- 2020Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Marketscited by 46
- 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 29
- 2021Heterogeneous Multi-player Multi-armed Bandits: Closing the Gap and Generalizationcited by 18
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 16
- 2020Cooperative and Stochastic Multi-Player Multi-Armed Bandit: Optimal Regret With Neither Communication Nor Collisionscited by 13
- 2022Decentralized, Communication- and Coordination-free Learning in Structured Matching Marketscited by 11
- 2022Thompson Sampling for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 10
- 2020Dominate or Delete: Decentralized Competing Bandits in Serial Dictatorshipcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2024Putting Gale & Shapley to Work: Guaranteeing Stability Through Learningcited by 6
- 2025Competing Bandits in Matching Markets via Super Stabilitycited by 2
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectivescited by 1
- 2025Learning Bilateral Team Formation in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorshipcited by 0
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertaintycited by 0
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertainty6 Jul 2026
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorship7 Dec 2025
- 2025Learning Bilateral Team Formation in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning24 Jun 2025
- 2025Competing Bandits in Matching Markets via Super Stability19 Jun 2025
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectives30 Nov 2024
- 2024Putting Gale & Shapley to Work: Guaranteeing Stability Through Learning6 Oct 2024