mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

No-Regret Learning for Fair Multi-Agent Social Welfare Optimization

arXiv 2405.20678 ↗First posted 31 May 2024cs.LG cs.GT cs.MAcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the problem of online multi-agent Nash social welfare (NSW) maximization. While previous works of Hossain et al. [2021], Jones et al. [2023] study similar problems in stochastic multi-agent multi-armed bandits and show that √T-regret is possible after T rounds, their fairness measure is the product of all agents' rewards, instead of their NSW (that is, their geometric mean). Given the fundamental role of NSW in the fairness literature, it is more than natural to ask whether no-regret fair learning with NSW as the objective is possible. In this work, we provide a complete answer to this question in various settings. Specifically, in stochastic N-agent K-armed bandits, we develop an algorithm with widetildeOleft(K^frac2NT^fracN-1Nright) regret and prove that the dependence on T is tight, making it a sharp contrast to the √T-regret bounds of Hossain et al. [2021], Jones et al. [2023]. We then consider a more challenging version of the problem with adversarial rewards. Somewhat surprisingly, despite NSW being a concave function, we prove that no algorithm can achieve sublinear regret. To circumvent such negative results, we further consider a setting with full-information feedback and design two algorithms with √T-regret: the first one has no dependence on N at all and is applicable to not just NSW but a broad class of welfare functions, while the second one has better dependence on K and is preferable when N is small. Finally, we also show that logarithmic regret is possible whenever there exists one agent who is indifferent about different arms.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2024.

Builds on

19 of 44 references.

References · 19

  1. 2019Introduction to Online Convex Optimizationcited by 803
  2. 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 168
  3. 2018More Adaptive Algorithms for Adversarial Banditscited by 114
  4. 2016Corralling a Band of Bandit Algorithmscited by 100
  5. 2013Bandits and Experts in Metric Spacescited by 63
  6. 2018Online Learning with an Unknown Fairness Metriccited by 62
  7. 2020Bias no more: high-probability data-dependent regret bounds for adversarial bandits and MDPscited by 51
  8. 2015Fighting Bandits with a New Kind of Smoothnesscited by 47
  9. 2019Fair Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits: Theory and Experimentscited by 42
  10. 2020Fair Algorithms for Multi-Agent Multi-Armed Banditscited by 41
  11. 2017Multi-objective Bandits: Optimizing the Generalized Gini Indexcited by 28
  12. 2021Fair Exploration via Axiomatic Bargainingcited by 22
7 more
  1. 2024Bandit Convex Optimisationcited by 19
  2. 2022Fairness and Welfare Quantification for Regret in Multi-Armed Banditscited by 17
  3. 2022An Efficient Algorithm for Fair Multi-Agent Multi-Armed Bandit with Low Regretcited by 10
  4. 2017Finding Fair and Efficient Allocationscited by 9
  5. 2023Nash Regret Guarantees for Linear Banditscited by 9
  6. 2019Approximating Nash Social Welfare under Submodular Valuations through (Un)Matchingscited by 1
  7. 2021Estimating the Nash Social Welfare for coverage and other submodular valuationscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

8 papers.