In this work, we extend the Dependent Click Model (DCM) Bandits to a multiplayer information-asymmetric setting, where multiple agents interact with a shared ranked list and may observe multiple clicks per session, introducing new challenges for selection strategies. We study asymmetry in (1) actions and (2) rewards, providing sublinear regret guarantees for three settings where at least one asymmetry is present. Establishing matching information-theoretic lower bounds for these settings is left as an open problem. We further show that for small termination probabilities, the termination ranking need not be known, improving on prior single-agent results. Experiments confirm that our algorithms perform well across asymmetric environments and highlight the critical role of feedback structure, specifically the distinction between full versus first-click feedback, in coordinating exploration and minimizing regret.
Multi-agent systems are increasingly used for forecasting future events, as deliberation among multiple LLMs is believed to improve reasoning and calibration. Yet existing approaches overlook a critical design choice: what information each agent receives. When all agents are given identical evidence, deliberation collapses into herding rather than genuine belief revision, leaving multi-agent systems little better than a single agent. We identify this as a fundamental gap and propose designed information asymmetry to close it: by partitioning evidence into shared public and disjoint private subsets, each agent holds exclusive knowledge that can only reach others through deliberation. We theoretically show that this decomposition reduces inter-agent error correlation, and instantiate it in InfoDelphi, a framework combining relevance-aware evidence routing, rationale-based iterative deliberation, and confidence-weighted aggregation. On PolyGym, a benchmark of 375 binary forecasting questions derived from real-world prediction markets, InfoDelphi outperforms the strongest single-agent and multi-agent baselines by 12--18% in Brier score and 4--8 percentage points in accuracy. More detailed experiments confirm that removing information asymmetry eliminates most deliberation gains, establishing diversity of input as the key enabler of effective multi-agent reasoning.