Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Multi-Agent Stochastic Bandits Robust to Adversarial Corruptions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DRAA is a fully distributed, corruption-robust algorithm for heterogeneous multi-agent bandits with regret O((L/Lmin)C + log T * K/Delta_min).

desk verdict First heterogeneous multi-agent corruption-robust bandit paper with a genuinely useful weighted estimator, but the proof of Lemma 2 has a reversed Freedman inequality and false constants, so Theorem 1 is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08167 v1 pith:NFTUALSL submitted 2024-11-12 cs.LG stat.ML

Fatemeh Ghaffari , Xuchuang Wang , Jinhang Zuo , Mohammad Hajiesmaili This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords agentsmulti-agentnumberadversarialadversaryalgorithmarmsbandits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Many real systems have several learners, called agents, each of which can only try a subset of all available options, or arms. Examples are regional recommendation platforms that share product ratings. A malicious party can fake ratings, and the agents do not know how much fake data is present. This paper studies how agents should cooperate when they can share what they observe, but the shared observations may be corrupted.

The authors propose DRAA, a distributed algorithm. Time is split into epochs of growing length. At the start of each epoch, every agent divides its arms into active and bad groups, pulling bad arms only rarely but still often enough to detect if a rating was corrupted. At the end of the epoch, agents broadcast their observations. The key technical step is a weighted estimator: when combining observations from other agents, the algorithm divides each agent's contribution by that agent's probability of pulling the arm, so that agents who rarely pull an arm do not dominate the average. This weighting is what makes the corruption penalty scale with Lmin, the minimum number of agents that share any arm, instead of with the total number of agents.

The main theoretical result is a regret bound. Regret is the reward lost by not always pulling the best local arm. DRAA achieves regret O((L/Lmin)C + log(T) K/Delta_min), where C is the adversary's total corruption budget. In the special cases of one agent, or all agents accessing all arms, this matches known lower bounds, improving on the previous best algorithms by removing a factor of K and of L from the corruption term.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1: with probability at least 1-delta, DRAA (Algorithm 2) achieves regret O((L/Lmin) C + log(KL/delta log T) log T * K/Delta_min) and communication cost O(L log(T log((8K/delta) log T))). If correct, the additive cost of adversarial corruption is linear in the corruption budget C, scaled only by L/Lmin, with no extra factor of K or L in the special cases.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm requires every agent to know the global arm set K and every other agent's local arm set (Algorithm 2, Input), because epoch lengths are set to T_m = lambda K 2^{2(m-1)}/Lmin and the pull probabilities depend on K and Lk. If agents only know their own arm set, they cannot compute Lmin or synchronize epoch boundaries, and the stated regret bound and communication protocol do not apply. The paper does not discuss relaxing this global-knowledge requirement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies L-agent K-arm stochastic bandits with adversarial corruption in a heterogeneous setting where each agent has its own local arm set. It proposes DRAA, a fully distributed, epoch-based algorithm in which each agent classifies its local arms as active or bad, assigns pull probabilities based on inverse estimated gaps, broadcasts observed reward sums at epoch boundaries, and forms estimates with a weighted estimator that reweights other agents' observations by inverse pull probabilities. The main result, Theorem 1, claims that with probability at least 1-δ the regret is O((L/Lmin)C + log(KL/δ log T) log T K/Δmin) and the communication cost is O(L log(T log((8K/δ) log T))), where C is the total adversarial corruption budget. The appendix derives the regret through a concentration lemma (Lemma 2), gap-estimate lemmas (Lemmas 3-5), and a three-case regret decomposition, and then specializes the bound to single-agent and homogeneous multi-agent settings, claiming to remove the K and L factors from the corruption term in those cases.

Significance. If the claimed bounds were correct, this would be a valuable first algorithm for heterogeneous multi-agent bandits with adversarial corruption, and the additive O((L/Lmin)C) corruption dependence is an attractive target. The claimed improvements over BARBAR in the single-agent case and over Liu et al. in the homogeneous multi-agent case are also significant, as is the explicit comparison between the weighted and naive estimators. The paper has a clear high-level proof strategy and the algorithm is reasonably described. However, the proof of Lemma 2, which is the cornerstone of every subsequent regret bound, contains several concrete and load-bearing errors: a reversed Freedman tail direction, an invalid |X_t'|≤1 bound, a numerically false lower bound relating the epoch length to the confidence parameter, and a mismatch between the event E that is stated and the event that is actually proved. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on a corrected analysis.

major comments (5)
  1. [A.1, Eq. (6) and Eq. (17)] Event E in Eq. (6) is defined with |r^m_{k,ℓ} - μ_k| ≤ 2C^m/(Lmin T^m) + Δ^{m-1}_{k,ℓ}/16, and Lemmas 3-5 and the regret decomposition in Section A.2 all condition on this event. However, the proof of Lemma 2 concludes with Eq. (17), which bounds the same deviation by 2C^m/(Lmin T^m) + Δ^m_{k,ℓ}/16. Since Δ^m_{k,ℓ} and Δ^{m-1}_{k,ℓ} are different random variables, the event actually proved is not the event used later. The proof must be modified to establish E as stated, or the subsequent lemmas must be reworked to use the event that is actually proved.
  2. [A.1, Eqs. (10)-(15)] The Freedman bound displayed immediately before Eq. (10) is a one-sided upper tail: Pr(Σ_t X_t' ≥ V/b + b ln(4/β)) ≤ β/4. The text then asserts, with probability β/4, a lower bound B^m/(w^m L_k T^m) ≥ 2 w^m Σ|c|/(w^m L_k T^m) + sqrt(...). The upper tail gives the opposite inequality for this direction. A two-sided bound, for instance by applying the same Freedman inequality to {-X_t'}, is required to justify Eq. (15), and it is not written. This is a sign error in the central concentration argument.
  3. [A.1, paragraph 'Upper bounding |X_t'|'] The bound |X_t'|≤1 is obtained by replacing the factor 2^{-2m-7} in the stated definition w^m_{k,ℓ}=2^{-2m-7} Lmin/(Lk K) (Δ^{m+1}_{k,ℓ})^{-2} with 2^{-2m-13}. With the definition as written, for k∈B^m_{ℓ'} one can only conclude |X_t'| ≤ (Δ^{m+1}_{k,ℓ})^{-2} ≤ 64, because Δ≥2^{-3} by Line 15 of Algorithm 2, not the claimed value 1. The Freedman inequality with b=1 is therefore not applicable as stated. The definition of w^m and the bounding argument must be made consistent.
  4. [A.1, Eq. (12)] The lower bound w^m_{k,ℓ} L_k T^m ≥ 2^{10} ln(4/β) is numerically false with the announced constants. Substituting T^m=λK2^{2(m-1)}/Lmin and w^m_{k,ℓ}=2^{-2m-7}Lmin/(LkK)(Δ^{m+1}_{k,ℓ})^{-2} gives w^m_{k,ℓ}L_kT^m = λ(Δ^{m+1}_{k,ℓ})^{-2}/512. With λ=224 ln(8KL log T/δ) and β=δ/(2KL log T), this is approximately 0.4375 ln(4/β)(Δ^{m+1}_{k,ℓ})^{-2}, which is at most about 28 ln(4/β). The claimed factor 2^{10} ln(4/β) is off by more than an order of magnitude. Consequently the bound sqrt(4 ln(4/β)/(w^m L_k T^m)) ≤ Δ^m/16 does not follow, and Lemma 2 is not established.
  5. [A.2, Case 3 and Eqs. (41), (48)] In Case 3 the text states 'if k∈B^{m-1}_ℓ' and then bounds RegB,3 by summing over k∈B^m_ℓ. These are different sets, and the proof does not explain why a bound for B^{m-1}_ℓ can be summed over B^m_ℓ. Given that Case 2 explicitly argued membership in B^m_ℓ, the Case 3 argument needs a matching membership statement for its corruption case. As written this part of the regret decomposition is not rigorous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 2, Input] The algorithm requires every agent to know the full arm set K and every other agent's local arm set in order to compute Lmin and the epoch lengths. This is a strong global-knowledge assumption for a 'fully distributed' algorithm; it should be stated explicitly and discussed, especially because the epoch boundaries and pull probabilities depend on it.
  2. [Appendix B, Lemma 6] Lemma 6 is stated with no assertion, and Eq. (33) refers to 'Lemma ??'. The proof of Remark 1 is therefore incomplete as presented.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph 'Regret Tightness'] The sentence 'the leading term in both cases remains 1/Δ_min' is misleading, since O(K/Δ_min) can be a factor K larger than O(Σ_{k≠k*} 1/Δ_k) when many gaps are near Δ_min. The comparison should be made precise or removed.
  4. [Throughout] There are frequent typos and OCR-style artifacts, including duplicated words ('if set too high or too low,if set too high or too low'), malformed inequality symbols ('/greaterorequalslant'), and inconsistent subscripts such as Δ^m_{k',ell}. These should be cleaned up before resubmission.
  5. [Theorem 1] The communication cost is stated without a proof or a precise definition of M, the number of epochs. The authors should specify M = min{m : T^m ≥ T} and prove the O(L log M) communication bound explicitly, since the epoch length depends on λ.
Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its free parameters are the hand-chosen algorithm constants, which are not fitted to data and do not affect asymptotic rates. The main load-bearing assumptions are the causal adversary model and global knowledge of arm sets.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (epoch length constant) = 2^24 log(8KL log T / delta)
    Hand-chosen constant in Algorithm 2 that controls epoch lengths T_m = lambda K 2^{2(m-1)}/Lmin. It is chosen large enough to satisfy the concentration bounds in Lemma 2 (beta >= 4e^{-lambda/16}) and appears only logarithmically in the final regret bound. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rewards for each arm are i.i.d. and bounded in [0,1]
    Section 2 states each arm k has a reward distribution D(mu_k) with mean mu_k, bounded in [0,1]. The regret objective is defined with respect to these means.
  • domain assumption The adversary is causal: it sees realized rewards and history, but not the current action, and returns corrupted rewards for all arms before the pull
    Procedure 1, Lines 2-4: the adversary observes realized rewards and previous actions, then returns corrupted rewards for all arms; the agent pulls afterward. This is required for the martingale argument in Lemma 2.
  • domain assumption Agents broadcast in a fully connected network and each knows the global arm set and all local arm sets
    Algorithm 2 Input requires the full arm-set K and all local arm-sets K_l. Line 2 computes T_m using global K and Lmin, and Lines 11-12 assume broadcast to all agents. This is load-bearing for epoch synchronization.
  • standard math Standard concentration inequalities (Chernoff-Hoeffding and Freedman) hold as stated
    Used in Lemma 2 and Claim 1; the paper cites Dubhashi & Panconesi (2009) for Chernoff-Hoeffding and Beygelzimer et al. (2011) for a Freedman-type inequality.
  • domain assumption Total corruption C is finite, defined as the sum over agents of l-infinity norms of per-round corruption
    Section 2 defines C := sum_l sum_t ||r~^t_l - r^t_l||_inf, consistent with prior corruption-robust bandit literature (Gupta et al. 2019, Lykouris et al. 2018).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Agent Stochastic Bandits Robust to Adversarial Corruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFTUALSL

@misc{pith2026241108167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Agent Stochastic Bandits Robust to Adversarial Corruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFTUALSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08167}
}
abstract

We study the problem of multi-agent multi-armed bandits with adversarial corruption in a heterogeneous setting, where each agent accesses a subset of arms. The adversary can corrupt the reward observations for all agents. Agents share these corrupted rewards with each other, and the objective is to maximize the cumulative total reward of all agents (and not be misled by the adversary). We propose a multi-agent cooperative learning algorithm that is robust to adversarial corruptions. For this newly devised algorithm, we demonstrate that an adversary with an unknown corruption budget $C$ only incurs an additive $O((L / L_{\min}) C)$ term to the standard regret of the model in non-corruption settings, where $L$ is the total number of agents, and $L_{\min}$ is the minimum number of agents with mutual access to an arm. As a side-product, our algorithm also improves the state-of-the-art regret bounds when reducing to both the single-agent and homogeneous multi-agent scenarios, tightening multiplicative $K$ (the number of arms) and $L$ (the number of agents) factors, respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  3. [3]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  4. [4]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  5. [5]

    Software

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Contextual bandit algorithms with supervised learning guarantees

    Alina Beygelzimer, John Langford, Lihong Li, Lev Reyzin, and Robert Schapire. Contextual bandit algorithms with supervised learning guarantees. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 19--26. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Stochastic linear bandits robust to adversarial attacks

    Ilija Bogunovic, Arpan Losalka, Andreas Krause, and Jonathan Scarlett. Stochastic linear bandits robust to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 991--999. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Collaborative Multi-Agent Heterogeneous Multi-Armed Bandits

    Ronshee Chawla, Daniel Vial, Sanjay Shakkottai, and R Srikant. Collaborative multi-agent heterogeneous multi-armed bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18784, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Contextual bandits with linear payoff functions

    Wei Chu, Lihong Li, Lev Reyzin, and Robert Schapire. Contextual bandits with linear payoff functions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 208--214. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Concentration of measure for the analysis of randomized algorithms

    Devdatt P Dubhashi and Alessandro Panconesi. Concentration of measure for the analysis of randomized algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems

    Eyal Even-Dar, Shie Mannor, Yishay Mansour, and Sridhar Mahadevan. Action elimination and stopping conditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems. Journal of machine learning research, 7 0 (6), 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Better algorithms for stochastic bandits with adversarial corruptions

    Anupam Gupta, Tomer Koren, and Kunal Talwar. Better algorithms for stochastic bandits with adversarial corruptions. In Conference on Learning Theory, pp.\ 1562--1578. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Distributed exploration in multi-armed bandits

    Eshcar Hillel, Zohar S Karnin, Tomer Koren, Ronny Lempel, and Oren Somekh. Distributed exploration in multi-armed bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Bayesian exploration with heterogeneous agents

    Nicole Immorlica, Jieming Mao, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. Bayesian exploration with heterogeneous agents. In The world wide web conference, pp.\ 751--761, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Corruption-tolerant bandit learning

    Sayash Kapoor, Kumar Kshitij Patel, and Purushottam Kar. Corruption-tolerant bandit learning. Machine Learning, 108 0 (4): 0 687--715, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Cooperative stochastic multi-agent multi-armed bandits robust to adversarial corruptions

    Junyan Liu, Shuai Li, and Dapeng Li. Cooperative stochastic multi-agent multi-armed bandits robust to adversarial corruptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04207, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Distributed learning in multi-armed bandit with multiple players

    Keqin Liu and Qing Zhao. Distributed learning in multi-armed bandit with multiple players. IEEE transactions on signal processing, 58 0 (11): 0 5667--5681, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Stochastic bandits robust to adversarial corruptions

    Thodoris Lykouris, Vahab Mirrokni, and Renato Paes Leme. Stochastic bandits robust to adversarial corruptions. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp.\ 114--122, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Multi-player bandits robust to adversarial collisions

    Shivakumar Mahesh, Anshuka Rangi, Haifeng Xu, and Long Tran-Thanh. Multi-player bandits robust to adversarial collisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07817, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A practical algorithm for multiplayer bandits when arm means vary among players

    Abbas Mehrabian, Etienne Boursier, Emilie Kaufmann, and Vianney Perchet. A practical algorithm for multiplayer bandits when arm means vary among players. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 1211--1221. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Robust federated best-arm identification in multi-armed bandits

    Aritra Mitra, Hamed Hassani, and George Pappas. Robust federated best-arm identification in multi-armed bandits. arXiv e-prints, pp.\ arXiv--2109, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Heterogeneous multi-player multi-armed bandits: Closing the gap and generalization

    Chengshuai Shi, Wei Xiong, Cong Shen, and Jing Yang. Heterogeneous multi-player multi-armed bandits: Closing the gap and generalization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 0 22392--22404, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Multi-armed bandits in recommendation systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and future directions

    N \' collas Silva, Heitor Werneck, Thiago Silva, Adriano CM Pereira, and Leonardo Rocha. Multi-armed bandits in recommendation systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and future directions. Expert Systems with Applications, 197: 0 116669, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Stochastic online shortest path routing: The value of feedback

    Mohammad Sadegh Talebi, Zhenhua Zou, Richard Combes, Alexandre Proutiere, and Mikael Johansson. Stochastic online shortest path routing: The value of feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63 0 (4): 0 915--930, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Robust multi-agent multi-armed bandits

    Daniel Vial, Sanjay Shakkottai, and R Srikant. Robust multi-agent multi-armed bandits. In Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Symposium on Theory, Algorithmic Foundations, and Protocol Design for Mobile Networks and Mobile Computing, pp.\ 161--170, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Robust multi-agent bandits over undirected graphs

    Daniel Vial, Sanjay Shakkottai, and R Srikant. Robust multi-agent bandits over undirected graphs. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, 6 0 (3): 0 1--57, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Optimal algorithms for multiplayer multi-armed bandits

    Po-An Wang, Alexandre Proutiere, Kaito Ariu, Yassir Jedra, and Alessio Russo. Optimal algorithms for multiplayer multi-armed bandits. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 4120--4129. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Achieving near-optimal individual regret & low communications in multi-agent bandits

    Xuchuang Wang, Lin Yang, Yu-Zhen Janice Chen, Xutong Liu, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Don Towsley, and John CS Lui. Achieving near-optimal individual regret & low communications in multi-agent bandits. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023 a

    2023

  21. [29]

    Xuchuang Wang, Lin Yang, Yu-zhen Janice Chen, Xutong Liu, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Don Towsley, and John C.S. Lui. Achieve near-optimal individual regret &amp; low communications in multi-agent bandits. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023 b

    2023

  22. [30]

    Xuchuang Wang, Lin Yang, Yu-zhen Janice Chen, Xutong Liu, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Don Towsley, and John C.S. Lui. Exploration for free: How does reward heterogeneity improve regret in cooperative multi-agent bandits? In The 39th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligen...

    2023

  23. [31]

    A model selection approach for corruption robust reinforcement learning

    Chen-Yu Wei, Christoph Dann, and Julian Zimmert. A model selection approach for corruption robust reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, pp.\ 1043--1096. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Adversarial bandits with corruptions: Regret lower bound and no-regret algorithm

    Lin Yang, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Mohammad Sadegh Talebi, John Lui, Wing Shing Wong, et al. Adversarial bandits with corruptions: Regret lower bound and no-regret algorithm. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 19943--19952, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Cooperative stochastic bandits with asynchronous agents and constrained feedback

    Lin Yang, Yu-Zhen Janice Chen, Stephen Pasteris, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, John Lui, and Don Towsley. Cooperative stochastic bandits with asynchronous agents and constrained feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 8885--8897, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Distributed bandits with heterogeneous agents

    Lin Yang, Yu-Zhen Janice Chen, Mohammad H Hajiemaili, John CS Lui, and Don Towsley. Distributed bandits with heterogeneous agents. In IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp.\ 200--209. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Linear contextual bandits with adversarial corruptions

    Heyang Zhao, Dongruo Zhou, and Quanquan Gu. Linear contextual bandits with adversarial corruptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12615, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A privacy-preserving distributed contextual federated online learning framework with big data support in social recommender systems

    Pan Zhou, Kehao Wang, Linke Guo, Shimin Gong, and Bolong Zheng. A privacy-preserving distributed contextual federated online learning framework with big data support in social recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 33 0 (3): 0 824--838, 2019 a

    2019

  29. [37]

    Toward optimal adaptive online shortest path routing with acceleration under jamming attack

    Pan Zhou, Jie Xu, Wei Wang, Yuchong Hu, Dapeng Oliver Wu, and Shouling Ji. Toward optimal adaptive online shortest path routing with acceleration under jamming attack. IEEE/ACM transactions on networking, 27 0 (5): 0 1815--1829, 2019 b

    2019

  30. [38]

    Tsallis-inf: An optimal algorithm for stochastic and adversarial bandits

    Julian Zimmert and Yevgeny Seldin. Tsallis-inf: An optimal algorithm for stochastic and adversarial bandits. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 0 (1): 0 1310--1358, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Online shortest path routing: The value of information

    Zhenhua Zou, Alexandre Proutiere, and Mikael Johansson. Online shortest path routing: The value of information. In 2014 American Control Conference, pp.\ 2142--2147. IEEE, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.