Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

COBRA: Contextual Bandit Algorithm for Ensuring Truthful Strategic Agents

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Truthful reporting becomes an approximate Nash equilibrium under a payment-free bandit algorithm, with sublinear regret.

desk verdict A genuinely different leave-one-out detection idea for strategic contextual bandits, but the main incentive-compatibility theorem is not proven because the NE analysis drops an instance-dependent 1/Δmin factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23720 v1 pith:7NFQQUKP submitted 2025-05-29 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

Arun Verma , Indrajit Saha , Makoto Yokoo , Bryan Kian Hsiang Low This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ML
keywords contextualbanditsstrategicagentsincentivecompatibilityapproximateNashequilibriummisreportingdetectionleave-one-outmechanismUCBThompsonsampling
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

This paper tries to establish that strategic misreporting in contextual bandits can be deterred without payments, using only a statistical test that compares an agent's reported features against everyone else's data. It proposes COBRA, which combines optimism-based arm selection with a leave-one-out check (LOOM) inspired by VCG pricing: an agent whose pessimistic reward estimate from the others' data exceeds the optimistic estimate from its own observed rewards is flagged as over-reporting and removed. The paper claims that when all agents report truthfully, truthfulness is a $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{T})$-Nash equilibrium and COBRA's regret is at most $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{T})$; under an additional comparability assumption the regret bound becomes $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{T}+\sqrt{NT})$ for every Nash equilibrium. If correct, this gives platforms a way to make truthful product listings a near-best response without charging or paying agents.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LOOM condition, $\mathrm{LCB}^{(x)}_{t,a} > \mathrm{UCB}^{(y)}_{t,a}$, which compares a pessimistic estimate of the agent's total expected reward, built from a leave-one-out estimate of the reward function using all other agents' data, to an optimistic estimate assembled from the noisy rewards actually observed when the agent was selected. This condition is what detects over-reporting and triggers elimination, and the paper's regret proofs reuse the same UCB and LCB confidence ellipsoids for both arm selection and detection.

What would settle it

Run COBRA with two or more agents who all over-report by a positive multiplicative factor on their feature vectors, keep those reports fixed across rounds, and check whether at any time the all-data upper confidence bound for an agent's reported feature falls below that agent's true expected reward; if such a violation occurs before LOOM removes the agents, Assumption 1 is violated and the observed regret can be compared directly against $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{T}+\sqrt{NT})$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that incentive compatibility in this strategic contextual bandit problem does not require transfers: a UCB-style learner can disincentivize over-reporting by making detection depend on the reports of other agents. Concretely, Theorem 2 says that under truthful reports, unilateral deviation cannot raise an agent's expected number of selections by more than $\widetilde{O}(d\sqrt{T})$, so truthful reporting is an approximate Nash equilibrium, and the same bound controls regret. Theorem 3 extends the regret guarantee to all Nash equilibria under Assumption 1, at the price of an extra $\sqrt{NT}$ term that comes from agents exploiting the learner's early uncertainty. The paper also generalizes the argument to nonlinear reward functions for any LOOM-compatible contextual bandit algorithm, meaning one whose reward estimator admits confidence bounds for both the full data and the leave-one-out data, with the same qualitative guarantees.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 1, that in every round and for every agent the true expected reward of the reported features lies below the all-data UCB and the all-data UCB lies below the leave-one-out UCB, a comparability the paper admits can fail once several agents over-report and bias every estimator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms can deter inflated listings without payments, since the threat of removal from the recommendation pool plays the role that prices play in VCG mechanisms.
  • The sublinear regret guarantee means recommendations approach the best truthful arm over time even while agents may be gaming the learner.
  • The same leave-one-out test can wrap any optimistic contextual bandit algorithm, linear or nonlinear, as long as that algorithm supplies valid confidence bounds.
  • The theorems quantify the price of incentives: truthfulness is only approximate, and the all-equilibria regret bound carries an extra $\sqrt{NT}$ term.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the detector uses other agents' data, an individual agent cannot directly corrupt the baseline that judges it, suggesting protection against unilateral manipulation that per-agent history estimators may lack.
  • The $\sqrt{NT}$ term points to many-agent coordination as the main scaling threat; a natural stress test is to run correlated over-reporting across a growing number of agents and watch whether the bound degrades.
  • The paper leaves under-reporting undetected, so a strategic agent might exploit features that lower true quality while still winning selections; a testable extension is to add a symmetric downward test and see whether the equilibrium and regret guarantees survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a linear (and, in appendices, non-linear) contextual bandit setting in which arms are strategic agents who may misreport their feature vectors to increase their probability of being selected. The authors propose LOOM, a VCG-inspired statistical test that compares a leave-one-out pessimistic reward estimate against an optimistic reward estimate, and COBRA, a UCB/TS-based algorithm that uses LOOM to eliminate detected over-reporters. The main theoretical claims are that when all agents report truthfully, COBRA has regret O~(d sqrt(T)) and truthfulness is an O~(d sqrt(T))-approximate Nash equilibrium (Theorem 2), and that under Assumption 1 every Nash equilibrium has strategic regret O~(d sqrt(T) + sqrt(NT)) (Theorem 3). The paper also reports simulations comparing COBRA with Lin-UCB, Lin-TS, and OptGTM on synthetic problem instances.

Significance. If the main claims were correct, the paper would make a meaningful contribution: it proposes a payment-free incentive-compatible mechanism for strategic contextual bandits, gives a VCG-inspired detection rule that uses other agents' reports rather than agent-specific baselines, and extends the analysis to LOOM-compatible non-linear bandit algorithms. The regret analysis under fully truthful reports follows a standard Lin-UCB argument, and the experimental section is careful about confidence intervals and varying problem instances. However, the central incentive-compatibility claim is not justified by the proof, and the flaw is not a presentation issue: it appears in the derivation of the approximate-NE guarantee, which is the paper's headline contribution. The paper also explicitly concedes in Appendix C that its own Assumption 1 may fail when multiple agents over-report, which further limits the scope of Theorem 3.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.2.1, Eq. (16)] The proof of Theorem 2 bounds the number of suboptimal selections by (2/Delta_min) * alpha_T * sqrt(T) * sqrt(2d log(lambda + TL/d)) and then concludes that this is O~(d sqrt(T)). This step is invalid because Delta_min = min_{a_t != a*_t} (theta*^T x*_{t,a*} - theta*^T x*_{t,a}) is an instance-dependent gap that can be arbitrarily small under the paper's own assumptions of bounded features and arbitrary theta*. The notation O~ cannot absorb 1/Delta_min, and for small-gap instances the displayed bound is not sublinear in T. Since this bound is used to derive Eq. (16), the claimed lower bound S_T(a) >= S*_T(a) - O~(d sqrt(T)) in Eq. (17) is not established.
  2. [Appendix A.2.1, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The unilateral-deviation step of Theorem 2 applies the all-truthful suboptimal-selection bound of Eq. (16) to an agent who misreports, without accounting for the fact that a deviating agent changes the selected arms, the covariance matrices V_t, the UCB values, and the LOOM elimination dynamics. The quantity sum_{t} 1(a_t != a*_t) is not invariant under a unilateral deviation, and no argument is given that the all-truthful bound controls it in the deviating profile. Consequently the upper bound S_T(a) <= S*_T(a) + O~(d sqrt(T)) in Eq. (19), and with it the approximate-NE claim of Theorem 2, is not proven.
  3. [Appendix A.2.2, Eq. (25)] The proof of the NE part of Theorem 3 repeats the same Delta_min problem: after dividing by Delta_min, the bound on sum_t 1(a_t != a*_t) is stated as O~(d sqrt(T) + sqrt(NT)) without justifying that 1/Delta_min is a constant independent of the instance. Under the stated assumptions Delta_min can be as small as T^{-1/2} or smaller, so the displayed bound does not imply a sublinear approximate-NE guarantee. Since this is the only proof of the equilibrium claim for the general case, the conclusion that every sigma in NE(COBRA) satisfies the stated guarantee is not supported.
  4. [Appendix C, Case 3] The paper states that when multiple agents over-report, all estimators used by COBRA become biased and theoretical guarantees are impossible without additional assumptions. Theorem 3, however, is asserted for every sigma in NE(COBRA), including profiles in which several agents over-report. Assumption 1 is stated as a sufficient condition, but the paper provides no evidence that Assumption 1 holds at any such equilibrium; indeed the appendix's own discussion suggests it may fail exactly there. This leaves the scope of Theorem 3 unclear and weakens the paper's claim that strategic regret is controlled under every Nash equilibrium.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Definitions 1-3] The notation is inconsistent: A is used both for the set of arms and for the set of agents in Definition 2, and N is used for both the set of agents and its cardinality. Please disambiguate.
  2. [Section 4, Algorithm 1] The pseudocode places the arm selection at Line 4, but the surrounding text refers to Line 5 for the same operation. Please align the text with the pseudocode numbering.
  3. [Section 4, TS-based algorithm] The sentence introducing the Thompson Sampling variant says 'we also propose a TS-based variant, COBRA(UCB)', which appears to be a typo for COBRA(TS). Please correct it.
  4. [Section 5] The description of the OptGTM baseline is very brief; please provide a short explanation of its parameters and how it is adapted to the reported setting, so that the experimental comparison is reproducible.
  5. [Appendix B, Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 repeats the same Delta_min division as Theorem 2, so the non-linear NE claim inherits the same issue; even if the appendix is considered supplementary, this should be flagged in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the main weaknesses are proof gaps and honest scope limitations, not self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The statistical engine is the standard LinUCB confidence ellipsoid (Abbasi-Yadkori et al., 2011, Theorem 2), imported as an external result rather than derived from the paper's conclusions. LOOM's detection condition (Eq. 2) is a union-bound comparison of a leave-one-out lower confidence bound and a Hoeffding upper confidence bound; Theorem 1 follows from Lemma 1 and the ellipsoid lemma and does not assume the result it proves. Theorem 2's regret part is the standard LinUCB regret calculation, and its NE part is a direct manipulation of the definition of utility as expected selection count, not a redefinition. Theorem 3 is explicitly conditional on Assumption 1, which is stated independently and whose limitations are acknowledged in Appendix C: "When multiple agents over-report, all estimators used by COBRA become biased, making it impossible to derive theoretical guarantees without additional constraints." An assumption that is admitted to fail outside its stated scope is not a conclusion smuggled into the input. The main substantive issue found is a proof gap, not circularity: in Appendix A.2.1, the bound on the number of suboptimal rounds introduces an instance-dependent gap Delta_min and then writes the result as O-tilde(d sqrt(T)) while dropping the 1/Delta_min factor; the same gap is reused in the deviation step and in the proof of Theorem 3. That is a mathematical correctness problem about instance dependence, not an equivalence by construction. Self-citations (Verma et al., 2023; Verma et al., 2024; Verma et al., 2025; Verma and Hanawal, 2021) occur only in related-work and future-work contexts and carry none of the proof. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is imported via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on domain assumptions (over-reporting only, no collusion) and on a purpose-built Assumption 1 that the appendix concedes can fail under strategic behavior. The standard bandit assumptions are external and uncontroversial.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Agents only over-report arm features, never under-report
    Section 4.1 states this restriction; Remark 1 admits that under-reporting is not detected and remains open.
  • domain assumption No collusion among agents
    Assumed before Theorem 2 and discussed in Appendix C as common in VCG-type mechanisms.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 1: for all t,a, the true expected reward of reported features is at most UCB_t(x) and UCB_t(x) is at most UCB_{t,-a}(x)
    Required for Theorem 3; Appendix C admits it can fail when multiple agents over-report, which undermines the strategic-case guarantee.
  • domain assumption Standard linear contextual bandit assumptions: bounded features ||x|| ≤ L, bounded parameter ||θ*|| ≤ S, and R-sub-Gaussian noise
    Standard in Lin-UCB literature and used in Lemma 2; these are external to the paper's contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COBRA: Contextual Bandit Algorithm for Ensuring Truthful Strategic Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7NFQQUKP

@misc{pith2026250523720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COBRA: Contextual Bandit Algorithm for Ensuring Truthful Strategic Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7NFQQUKP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23720}
}
read the original abstract

This paper considers a contextual bandit problem involving multiple agents, where a learner sequentially observes the contexts and the agent's reported arms, and then selects the arm that maximizes the system's overall reward. Existing work in contextual bandits assumes that agents truthfully report their arms, which is unrealistic in many real-life applications. For instance, consider an online platform with multiple sellers; some sellers may misrepresent product quality to gain an advantage, such as having the platform preferentially recommend their products to online users. To address this challenge, we propose an algorithm, COBRA, for contextual bandit problems involving strategic agents that disincentivize their strategic behavior without using any monetary incentives, while having incentive compatibility and a sub-linear regret guarantee. Our experimental results also validate the different performance aspects of our proposed algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a contextual bandit problem with strategic agents: Consider an online platform recommending service providers (agents) to users (context) who arrive sequentially. Since service providers can misreport their private information to receive more recommendations, the platform must implement a mechanism incentivizing truthful reporting. With accurate private information, the platform can recommend the best ser… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing cumulative regret of COBRA with different baselines. Regret comparison with baselines. We compare the regret of proposed algorithms with three other baselines: Lin-UCB (Li et al., 2010), Lin-TS (Agrawal and Goyal, 2013) and OptGTM (Kleine Buening et al., 2024). For experiments we consider various linear-utility functions, problem instance 1, f(x) = 5x ⊤θ⋆, problem instance 2, f(x) = 2x ⊤θ⋆, problem instanc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative regret of COBRA vs. different types of strategic manipulations. (a) Vary agents (UCB) (b) Vary agents (TS) (c) Vary dimension (UCB) (d) Vary dimension (TS) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative regret of COBRA vs. different values of N and d. Regret of COBRA vs. number of agents (N) and dimension (d). The number of agents (N) and dimension of context-agent feature vector (d) in the contextual bandit problem control the difficulty. As their values i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing the cumulative regret of COBRA with different baselines for problem instances with non-linear reward functions. Computational resources. All the experiments are run on a server with AMD EPYC 7543 32-Core Processor, 256GB RAM, and 8 GeForce RTX 3080. 30 [PITH…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MESHA: Mechanism-Enforced Sequential Halving for Strategic Linear Bandits

    cs.LG 2026-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    MESHA couples uniform sampling with an epoch-wise Grim Trigger Condition to identify near-optimal arms in strategic linear bandits, with an exponential failure-probability bound under Nash equilibrium.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Improved Algorithms for Linear Stochastic Bandits

    Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori, D \'a vid P \'a l, and Csaba Szepesv \'a ri. Improved Algorithms for Linear Stochastic Bandits . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 2312--2320, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Analysis of Thompson Sampling for the Multi-armed Bandit Problem

    Shipra Agrawal and Navin Goyal. Analysis of Thompson Sampling for the Multi-armed Bandit Problem . In Proc. COLT, pages 39.1--39.26, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Thompson Sampling for Contextual Bandits with Linear Payoffs

    Shipra Agrawal and Navin Goyal. Thompson Sampling for Contextual Bandits with Linear Payoffs . In Proc. ICML, pages 127--135, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Online Learning with Feedback Graphs: Beyond Bandits

    Noga Alon, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Ofer Dekel, and Tomer Koren. Online Learning with Feedback Graphs: Beyond Bandits . In Proc. COLT, pages 23--35, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem

    Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, and Paul Fischer. Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem . Machine Learning, pages 235--256, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    On multi-armed bandit designs for dose-finding trials

    Maryam Aziz, Emilie Kaufmann, and Marie-Karelle Riviere. On multi-armed bandit designs for dose-finding trials. Journal of Machine Learning Research, pages 1--38, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Multi-armed bandit problems with strategic arms

    Mark Braverman, Jieming Mao, Jon Schneider, and S Matthew Weinberg. Multi-armed bandit problems with strategic arms. In Conference on Learning Theory, pages 383--416. PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    An Empirical Evaluation of Thompson Sampling

    Olivier Chapelle and Lihong Li. An Empirical Evaluation of Thompson Sampling . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 2249--2257, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Adaptive design methods in clinical trials

    Shein-Chung Chow and Mark Chang. Adaptive design methods in clinical trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    2006

  2. [10]

    On Kernelized Multi-armed Bandits

    Sayak Ray Chowdhury and Aditya Gopalan. On Kernelized Multi-armed Bandits . In Proc. ICML, pages 844--853, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Contextual Bandits with Linear Payoff Functions

    Wei Chu, Lihong Li, Lev Reyzin, and Robert E Schapire. Contextual Bandits with Linear Payoff Functions . In Proc. AISTATS, pages 208--214, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Multipart pricing of public goods

    Edward H Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public choice, pages 17--33, 1971

    1971

  5. [13]

    Combinatorial bandits under strategic manipulations

    Jing Dong, Ke Li, Shuai Li, and Baoxiang Wang. Combinatorial bandits under strategic manipulations. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 219--229, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Strategic classification from revealed preferences

    Jinshuo Dong, Aaron Roth, Zachary Schutzman, Bo Waggoner, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. Strategic classification from revealed preferences. In Proc. EC, pages 55--70, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Replication-proof bandit mechanism design

    Seyed Esmaeili, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, and Suho Shin. Replication-proof bandit mechanism design. arXiv:2312.16896, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    The intrinsic robustness of stochastic bandits to strategic manipulation

    Zhe Feng, David Parkes, and Haifeng Xu. The intrinsic robustness of stochastic bandits to strategic manipulation. In Proc. ICML, pages 3092--3101. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Parametric Bandits: The Generalized Linear Case

    Sarah Filippi, Olivier Cappe, Aur \'e lien Garivier, and Csaba Szepesv \'a ri. Parametric Bandits: The Generalized Linear Case . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 586--594, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    No-regret and incentive-compatible online learning

    Rupert Freeman, David Pennock, Chara Podimata, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. No-regret and incentive-compatible online learning. In Proc. ICML, pages 3270--3279. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    The KL-UCB Algorithm for Bounded Stochastic Bandits and Beyond

    Aur \'e lien Garivier and Olivier Capp \'e . The KL-UCB Algorithm for Bounded Stochastic Bandits and Beyond . In Proc. COLT, pages 359--376, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Linear regression from strategic data sources

    Nicolas Gast, Stratis Ioannidis, Patrick Loiseau, and Benjamin Roussillon. Linear regression from strategic data sources. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), pages 1--24, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Incentives in teams

    Theodore Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 617--631, 1973

    1973

  14. [22]

    Strategic classification

    Moritz Hardt, Nimrod Megiddo, Christos Papadimitriou, and Mary Wootters. Strategic classification. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on innovations in theoretical computer science, pages 111--122, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Strategic instrumental variable regression: Recovering causal relationships from strategic responses

    Keegan Harris, Dung Daniel T Ngo, Logan Stapleton, Hoda Heidari, and Steven Wu. Strategic instrumental variable regression: Recovering causal relationships from strategic responses. In Proc. ICML, pages 8502--8522. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Strategic apple tasting

    Keegan Harris, Chara Podimata, and Steven Z Wu. Strategic apple tasting. Proc. NeurIPS, 36: 0 79918--79945, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Truthful mechanisms for linear bandit games with private contexts, 2025

    Yiting Hu and Lingjie Duan. Truthful mechanisms for linear bandit games with private contexts, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Scalable Generalized Linear Bandits: Online Computation and Hashing

    Kwang-Sung Jun, Aniruddha Bhargava, Robert Nowak, and Rebecca Willett. Scalable Generalized Linear Bandits: Online Computation and Hashing . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 99--109, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Bandits meet mechanism design to combat clickbait in online recommendation

    Thomas Kleine Buening, Aadirupa Saha, Christos Dimitrakakis, and Haifeng Xu. Bandits meet mechanism design to combat clickbait in online recommendation. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv--2311, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Strategic linear contextual bandits

    Thomas Kleine Buening, Aadirupa Saha, Christos Dimitrakakis, and Haifeng Xu. Strategic linear contextual bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 116638--116675, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bandit Algorithms

    Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesv\'ari. Bandit Algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A Contextual-Bandit Approach to Personalized News Article Recommendation

    Lihong Li, Wei Chu, John Langford, and Robert E Schapire. A Contextual-Bandit Approach to Personalized News Article Recommendation . In Proc. WWW, pages 661--670, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Provably Optimal Algorithms for Generalized Linear Contextual Bandits

    Lihong Li, Yu Lu, and Dengyong Zhou. Provably Optimal Algorithms for Generalized Linear Contextual Bandits . In Proc. ICML, pages 2071--2080, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Contextual dynamic pricing with strategic buyers

    Pangpang Liu, Zhuoran Yang, Zhaoran Wang, and Will Wei Sun. Contextual dynamic pricing with strategic buyers. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 1--13, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    A bandit framework for strategic regression

    Yang Liu and Yiling Chen. A bandit framework for strategic regression. Proc. NeurIPS, 29, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Worst practices in search engine optimization

    Ross A Malaga. Worst practices in search engine optimization. Communications of the ACM, 51 0 (12): 0 147--150, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    The influence limiter: provably manipulation-resistant recommender systems

    Paul Resnick and Rahul Sami. The influence limiter: provably manipulation-resistant recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on Recommender systems, pages 25--32, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Multi-armed bandit algorithm against strategic replication

    Suho Shin, Seungjoon Lee, and Jungseul Ok. Multi-armed bandit algorithm against strategic replication. In Proc. AISTATS, pages 403--431, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Introduction to Multi-Armed Bandits

    Aleksandrs Slivkins. Introduction to Multi-Armed Bandits . Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Pac-learning for strategic classification

    Ravi Sundaram, Anil Vullikanti, Haifeng Xu, and Fan Yao. Pac-learning for strategic classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (192): 0 1--38, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Finite-time Analysis of Kernelised Contextual Bandits

    Michal Valko, Nathan Korda, R \'e mi Munos, Ilias Flaounas, and Nello Cristianini. Finite-time Analysis of Kernelised Contextual Bandits . In Proc. UAI, pages 654--663, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Stochastic Multi-Armed Bandits with Control Variates

    Arun Verma and Manjesh K Hanawal. Stochastic Multi-Armed Bandits with Control Variates . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 27592--27603, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Exploiting correlated auxiliary feedback in parameterized bandits

    Arun Verma, Zhongxiang Dai, Yao Shu, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Exploiting correlated auxiliary feedback in parameterized bandits. In Proc. NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Keep everyone happy: Online fair division of numerous items with few copies

    Arun Verma, Indrajit Saha, Makoto Yokoo, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Keep everyone happy: Online fair division of numerous items with few copies. arXiv:2408.12845, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Neural dueling bandits: Preference-based optimization with human feedback

    Arun Verma, Zhongxiang Dai, Xiaoqiang Lin, Patrick Jaillet, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. Neural dueling bandits: Preference-based optimization with human feedback. In Proc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders

    William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance, pages 8--37, 1961

    1961

  37. [45]

    Online Learning with Gaussian Payoffs and Side Observations

    Yifan Wu, Andr \'a s Gy \"o rgy, and Csaba Szepesv \'a ri. Online Learning with Gaussian Payoffs and Side Observations . In Proc. NeurIPS, pages 1360--1368, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Strategic multi-armed bandit problems under debt-free reporting

    Ahmed Ben Yahmed, Cl \'e ment Calauz \`e nes, and Vianney Perchet. Strategic multi-armed bandit problems under debt-free reporting. In Proc. NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Online allocation and learning in the presence of strategic agents

    Steven Yin, Shipra Agrawal, and Assaf Zeevi. Online allocation and learning in the presence of strategic agents. Proc. NeurIPS, 35: 0 6333--6344, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Partially observable contextual bandits with linear payoffs

    Sihan Zeng, Sujay Bhatt, Alec Koppel, and Sumitra Ganesh. Partially observable contextual bandits with linear payoffs. arXiv:2409.11521, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Learning payment-free resource allocation mechanisms

    Sihan Zeng, Sujay Bhatt, Eleonora Kreacic, Parisa Hassanzadeh, Alec Koppel, and Sumitra Ganesh. Learning payment-free resource allocation mechanisms. In 2024 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pages 2667--2678. IEEE, 2024 b

    2024

  42. [50]

    Incentive-aware pac learning

    Hanrui Zhang and Vincent Conitzer. Incentive-aware pac learning. In Proc. AAAI, pages 5797--5804, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Neural Thompson sampling

    Weitong Zhang, Dongruo Zhou, Lihong Li, and Quanquan Gu. Neural Thompson sampling . In Proc. ICLR , 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Understanding the manipulation on recommender systems through web injection

    Yubao Zhang, Jidong Xiao, Shuai Hao, Haining Wang, Sencun Zhu, and Sushil Jajodia. Understanding the manipulation on recommender systems through web injection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 15: 0 3807--3818, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Neural contextual bandits with UCB -based exploration

    Dongruo Zhou, Lihong Li, and Quanquan Gu. Neural contextual bandits with UCB -based exploration . In Proc. ICML , pages 11492--11502, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.