Strategies in the multi-armed bandit

Stanton Hudja & D. C. Woods

Experimental Economics2025https://doi.org/10.1017/eec.2025.10027article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

This paper analyzes individual behavior in multi-armed bandit problems. We use a between-subjects experiment to implement four bandit problems that vary based on the horizon (indefinite or finite) and the number of bandit arms (two or three). We analyze commonly suggested strategies and find that an overwhelming majority of subjects are best fit by either a probabilistic “win-stay lose-shift” strategy or reinforcement learning. However, we show that subjects violate the assumptions of the probabilistic win-stay lose-shift strategy as switching depends on more than the previous outcome. We design two new “biased” strategies that adapt either reinforcement learning or myopic quantal response by incorporating a bias toward choosing the previous arm. We find that a majority of subjects are best fit by one of these two strategies but also find heterogeneity in subjects’ best-fitting strategies. We show that the performance of our biased strategies is robust to adapting popular strategies from other literatures (e.g., EWA and I-SAW) and using different selection criteria. Additionally, we find that our biased strategies best fit a majority of subjects when analyzing a new treatment with a new set of subjects.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/eec.2025.10027

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{stanton2025,
  title        = {{Strategies in the multi-armed bandit}},
  author       = {Stanton Hudja & D. C. Woods},
  journal      = {Experimental Economics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/eec.2025.10027},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Strategies in the multi-armed bandit

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.