Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2410.17086

Exploration and Persuasion

Aleksandrs Slivkins
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How to incentivize self-interested agents to explore when they prefer to exploit? Consider a population of self-interested agents that make decisions under uncertainty. They "explore" to acquire new information and "exploit" this information to make good decisions. Collectively they need to balance these two objectives, but their incentives are skewed toward exploitation. This is because exploration is costly, but its benefits are spread over many agents in the future. "Incentivized Exploration" addresses this issue via strategic communication. Consider a benign ``principal" which can communicate with the agents and make recommendations, but cannot force the agents to comply. Moreover, suppose the principal can observe the agents' decisions and the outcomes of these decisions. The goal is to design a communication and recommendation policy which (i) achieves a desirable balance between exploration and exploitation, and (ii) incentivizes the agents to follow recommendations. What makes it feasible is "information asymmetry": the principal knows more than any one agent, as it collects information from many. It is essential that the principal does not fully reveal all its knowledge to the agents. Incentivized exploration combines two important problems in, resp., machine learning and theoretical economics. First, if agents always follow recommendations, the principal faces a multi-armed bandit problem: essentially, design an algorithm that balances exploration and exploitation. Second, interaction with a single agent corresponds to "Bayesian persuasion", where a principal leverages information asymmetry to convince an agent to take a particular action. We provide a brief but self-contained introduction to each problem through the lens of incentivized exploration, solving a key special case of the former as a sub-problem of the latter.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.LGecon.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Aleksandrs Slivkins. 2024-10-22. Exploration and Persuasion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17086

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗