Cited by 6,033Advanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchReinforcement Learning in RoboticsOptimization and Search Problems

Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem

Open access
Auer, Peter, Cesa-Bianchi, Nicolò, Fischer, Paul·2002·Machine Learning

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1013689704352

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Across all runs, the DGM-H independently creates variants of Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) style selection, combining normalized performance with explicit exploration bonuses.

    “Across all runs, the DGM-H independently creates variants of Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) (Auer et al., 2002) style selection, combining normalized performance with explicit exploration bonuses:”

    From Hyperagents (2026) · cites this paper as Auer et al., 2002

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Duff, M. (1995). Q-learning for bandit problems. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 209-217).
  2. Gittins, J. (1989). Multi-armed bandit allocation indices, Wiley-Interscience series in Systems and Optimization. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  3. Holland, J. (1992). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
  4. Ishikida, T., & Varaiya, P. (1994). Multi-armed bandit problem revisited. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 83:1, 113-154.
  5. Pollard, D. (1984). Convergence of stochastic processes. Berlin: Springer.
  6. Wilks, S. (1962). Matematical statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  7. Yakowitz, S., & Lowe, W. (1991). Nonparametric bandit methods. Annals of Operations Research, 28, 297- 312. Received September 29, 2000 Revised May 21, 2001 Accepted June 20, 2001 Final manuscript June 20, 2001

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Auer, P., Cesa-Bianchi, N., & Fischer, P.
Affiliations
  • Graz University of Technology (AT)
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
2002-05
Volume
47
Issue
2-3
Pages
235-256
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W2168405694
Cited by
6,033
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 343 · 2025: 346 · 2024: 353 · 2023: 361 · 2022: 405 · 2021: 559 · 2020: 603 · 2019: 478 · 2018: 417 · 2017: 345 · 2016: 325 · 2015: 306 · 2014: 291 · 2013: 234 · 2012: 209
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Optimization and Search Problems
Keywords
multi-armed bandits, exploration-exploitation balance, logarithmic regret, reinforcement learning policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review