Exploration in centralized serial-dictatorship matching bandits must use complete matchings, so learning one player-arm pair can impose regret on others. We study this externality under a known common priority order and Gaussian rewards with unit variance. We show that the matching-level Graves-Lai constraints reduce to finitely many pairwise exploration quotas and, at top-choice-separated instances, yield a polynomial-size marginal linear program. At these instances, the exact attainable set of expected logarithmic regret coefficients is G(θ)X(θ), where X is the feasible matching-allocation set and G maps allocations to player regret. The usual upper-closed Graves-Lai region can be strictly larger despite having the same Pareto-minimal boundary. We further show that identical exploration quotas can induce very different regret through their scheduling. Finally, we construct estimate-solve-track policies, uniformly good on the full row-strict class, that attain every fixed positively weighted optimum without assuming optimizer uniqueness. Every Pareto-minimal point is pointwise attainable, possibly through an instance-calibrated target.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The same exploration quotas, scheduled differently, make different players pay. Left: mB serves the large quotas of p1 and p2 at once and leaves p3 on its worst arm ( r3=202 ). Right: mA , then mC (dashed), spare p3 ( r3=2.02 ) but make p2 pay for both large quotas ( r2=222 ). ri is pi ’s expected logarithmic regret coefficient (Example 4.8 ); the stable matching is pi↦ai ; a small quota is not drawn.
Figure 2: Scheduling trade-off at T=107 : final (R2/b(T),R3/b(T)) for πs , s∈{0,0.25,0.5,0.75,1} , 20 seeds each (filled), against the segment r3=221.8−0.99r2 of the asymptotic Graves–Lai (GL) boundary; open markers, shaped as the corresponding split, are oracle s -split medians over 20 seeds and sit on it. The plug-in splits are ordered along the segment but displaced outward by the finite-horizon transient. The cross is layered KL-UCB (mean over 50 seeds).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Result
Instances
Additional hypotheses
Type
Thm C.1 ( 2×2 constants)
θΔ,γ
uniform goodness on the one-row class C
necessary + attained
Thm 4.1 (information allocation)
Θstrict
uniform goodness on Θstrict
necessary
Prop 4.5 , Thm 4.6 (regret region, Cw )
Θsep
uniform goodness on Θstrict
necessary
Thm 4.2 (exact quota reduction)
Θstrict
none
structural
Thm 4.3 , Prop 4.4 (compact LP, schedules)
Θsep
w>0
structural
Prop 4.9 ( 3×3 frontier)
μ(3)
none
necessary (explicit)
Appendix
Table 1: Scope of the main results. The four standing modeling conventions (Gaussian rewards with known common variance normalized to one, known common priority order, complete matching, centralized semi-bandit feedback) apply throughout and are not repeated.
Line of work
Object
Difference from this paper
Matching-bandit order-level work
Stable regret up to order or constant factors
Does not characterize the full player-level coefficient set or who pays under alternative complete-matching schedules.
Binary stable-regret work
A scalar count of unstable rounds
Studies a scalar binary criterion and may allow two-sided uncertainty; our target is the vector of utility regrets under one-sided Gaussian learning.
Group-fair exploration
Attainable incremental-utility profiles and a bargaining point
Uses grouped arrivals and Nash bargaining; our matching constraints yield an explicit polyhedral coefficient set and recoverable schedules.
Pareto regret work
Trade-offs across benchmark experts or arms, or across gap regimes
The trade-off is across players at a fixed instance, with exact quotas and attainable schedules.
Appendix
Table 2: Comparison by object and conclusion. The present paper studies player-level utility-regret coefficients at a fixed top-choice-separated instance.
variant
E
C
F
cand.
w⊤R/b med [IQR]
expl.
wrong
est.
lock-wr.
oracle
✓
–
–
–
244.4
[244.4,244.4]
3,872
0
0
–
plug-in
✓
–
✓
dyn
299.0
[230.5,382.3]
6,122
970
0
–
certified
✓
✓
✓
dyn
752.2
[650.3,872.4]
4,073
0
27,589
–
frozen cand.
✓
✓
✓
frz
28,117
[874,273,425]
4,473
0
≈107
62%
no floor
✓
–
–
dyn
311.3
[242.7,382.8]
8,772
333
0
–
exploit-only
stops
–
✓
lock
72.1
[1.8,57,386]
4
1,366
0
44%
Appendix
Table 3: Mechanism ablation at T=107 , 50 seeds, w=(1,1,1) , Cw=244 : persistent quota exploration (E), certification (C), noise floor (F), candidate (dyn/frozen/lock-in); median [IQR] of w⊤R(T)/b(T) ; median exploration, wrong-exploitation and estimation rounds; fraction of seeds with an incorrect fixed matching (defined below). Count medians are rounded to the nearest integer, with halves rounded up.
Figure 3: Ri(T)/b(T) against T (median and interquartile band over 50 seeds) for the oracle tracker (left) and the plug-in tracker (right), with the canonical targets r∘=(22,20,202) dotted. The oracle closely tracks all three constants. The plug-in medians for p2,p3 lie between the two frontier endpoints with wide interquartile bands: at finite horizons the empirical optimizers select different endpoints across seeds (Remark F.3 ), because at w=(1,1,1) the two vertices differ in weighted cost by only 0.8% .
Figure 4: w⊤R(T)/(Cwb(T)) (median and interquartile band, 50 seeds) for the oracle and plug-in trackers on μ(3) .
Figure 5: Three exact N=4 regret vectors spanning a two-dimensional Pareto face. The top-player coordinate r1=76/3 is constant and is omitted from the projection.
Group
instances × seeds
w⊤R/(Cwb)
3×3
10×50
1.63±0.86
4×4
10×50
1.63±0.74
5×5
10×50
1.80±0.78
3×4
03×50
1.71±0.61
Appendix
Table 4: Random markets and baselines, w=(1,…,1) , mean ± sd of w⊤R(T)/(Cwb(T)) over 50 seeds. Top: plug-in tracker at T=107 on the 33 random instances, pooled by size. Bottom: one further probe instance per size and the three-player instance μ(3) , with the dedicated-cover and layered KL-UCB baselines; KL-UCB is run at T=107 and at T=105 , where a plug-in run is added for reference. ∗ From the main suite of § 6 (median 1.23 ).
In bandit problems, standard regret-minimizing algorithms treat exploration as an amortized cost, which can expose early participants to unfair ex-ante losses in settings such as clinical trials. Recent work addresses this by evaluating the sequence of per-round expected rewards through the generalized p-mean, interpolating between utilitarian welfare (p=1), Nash welfare (p→0), and Rawlsian fairness (p→−∞). Although tight guarantees are known for p≥0, the strictly fair regime q=−p>0 remains unresolved because negative-power means are dominated by the smallest per-round rewards. For σ-sub-Gaussian rewards with nonnegative means, the best prior algorithm relied on uniform early exploration and achieved regret O(k(q+1)/2/T), while the only general lower bound was the classical Ω(σk/T). Thus it was unclear whether the extra dependence on k was intrinsic to strict fairness or an artifact of uniform exploration. We close this gap by identifying the exact polynomial price of strict fairness. Using a needle-in-haystack construction, we prove an algorithm-independent lower bound Ω(σkmax(1,q)/T); for q>1, this shows that the penalty kq/2 is information-theoretically unavoidable. We then introduce UCB-HARE (Harmonic Anchored Rank Exploration), which replaces uniform exploration with an inverse-weighted harmonic rank schedule protected by a certified positive-mean anchor. Its regret is O(σkmax(1,q)/T), matching the lower bound up to logarithmic factors. Experiments on synthetic instances confirm that UCB-HARE improves over uniform-exploration baselines, with gains increasing as q grows.
Dhruv Sarkar, Soumyadeep Dutta, Sayak Ray Chowdhury
1Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur · 2Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · 3Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
In bandit settings, optimizing long-term regret metrics requires exploration, which corresponds to sometimes taking myopically sub-optimal actions. When a long-lived principal merely recommends actions to be executed by a sequence of different agents (as in an online recommendation platform) this provides an incentive misalignment: exploration is "worth it" for the principal but not for the agents. Prior work studies regret minimization under the constraint of Bayesian Incentive-Compatibility in a static stochastic setting with a fixed and common prior shared amongst the agents and the algorithm designer. We show that (weighted) swap regret bounds on their own suffice to cause agents to faithfully follow forecasts in an approximate Bayes Nash equilibrium, even in dynamic environments in which agents have conflicting prior beliefs and the mechanism designer has no knowledge of any agents beliefs. To obtain these bounds, it is necessary to assume that the agents have some degree of uncertainty not just about the rewards, but about their arrival time -- i.e. their relative position in the sequence of agents served by the algorithm. We instantiate our abstract bounds with concrete algorithms for guaranteeing adaptive and weighted regret in bandit settings.
Ramya Ramalingam, Osbert Bastani, Aaron Roth
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
We study a sequential learning problem for stable matchings in two-sided markets where preferences on both sides are initially unknown. We focus on a centralized setting where an algorithm matches agents at each time step and receives noisy rewards that reflect the preferences of the matched agents, following a semi-bandit feedback structure. We adopt a pure exploration perspective, aiming to efficiently identify the optimal stable matching with high probability. Our work extends prior results by handling two-sided uncertainty and by exploiting partial preference information. A central ingredient is the notion of pervasive stable matching, which enables the identification of optimal stable matchings under partial preferences. We propose elimination-based algorithms whose stopping criteria exploit the structure of the learned partial preferences, and provide a refined sample-complexity analysis. Beyond pure exploration, we extend our approach to regret minimization and establish regret bounds with respect to the optimal stable matching that avoid dependence on the minimum reward gap Δmin.
Andreas Athanasopoulos, Anne-Marie George, Christos Dimitrakakis
University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland · University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway