mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

No-Regret Algorithms in non-Truthful Auctions with Budget and ROI Constraints

arXiv 2404.09832 ↗First posted 15 Apr 2024cs.GT cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Advertisers increasingly use automated bidding to optimize their ad campaigns on online advertising platforms. Autobidding optimizes an advertiser's objective subject to various constraints, e.g. average ROI and budget constraints. In this paper, we study the problem of designing online autobidding algorithms to optimize value subject to ROI and budget constraints when the platform is running any mixture of first and second price auction. We consider the following stochastic setting: There is an item for sale in each of T rounds. In each round, buyers submit bids and an auction is run to sell the item. We focus on one buyer, possibly with budget and ROI constraints. We assume that the buyer's value and the highest competing bid are drawn i.i.d. from some unknown (joint) distribution in each round. We design a low-regret bidding algorithm that satisfies the buyer's constraints. Our benchmark is the objective value achievable by the best possible Lipschitz function that maps values to bids, which is rich enough to best respond to many different correlation structures between value and highest competing bid. Our main result is an algorithm with full information feedback that guarantees a near-optimal tilde O(√ T) regret with respect to the best Lipschitz function. Our result applies to a wide range of auctions, most notably any mixture of first and second price auctions (price is a convex combination of the first and second price). In addition, our result holds for both value-maximizing buyers and quasi-linear utility-maximizing buyers. We also study the bandit setting, where we show an Omega(T2/3) lower bound on the regret for first-price auctions, showing a large disparity between the full information and bandit settings. We also design an algorithm with tilde O(T3/4) regret, when the value distribution is known and is independent of the highest competing bid.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2024.

Builds on

20 of 37 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019Introduction to Online Convex Optimizationcited by 793
  2. 2013Bandits with Knapsackscited by 163
  3. 2015Explore no more: Improved high-probability regret bounds for non-stochastic banditscited by 120
  4. 2014Bandits with concave rewards and convex knapsackscited by 83
  5. 2015Linear Contextual Bandits with Knapsackscited by 82
  6. 2018Adversarial Bandits with Knapsackscited by 73
  7. 2020Dual Mirror Descent for Online Allocation Problemscited by 51
  8. 2020Learning to Bid Optimally and Efficiently in Adversarial First-price Auctionscited by 33
  9. 2018Contextual Bandits with Cross-learningcited by 31
  10. 2022Contextual Bandits with Packing and Covering Constraints: A Modular Lagrangian Approach via Regressioncited by 30
  11. 2020Online Learning with Vector Costs and Bandits with Knapsackscited by 20
  12. 2023Autobidders with Budget and ROI Constraints: Efficiency, Regret, and Pacing Dynamicscited by 20
8 more
  1. 2022Budget Pacing in Repeated Auctions: Regret and Efficiency without Convergencecited by 18
  2. 2022Online Bidding Algorithms for Return-on-Spend Constrained Advertiserscited by 17
  3. 2023Learning to Bid in Repeated First-Price Auctions with Budgetscited by 14
  4. 2022Non-monotonic Resource Utilization in the Bandits with Knapsacks Problemcited by 12
  5. 2023Approximately Stationary Bandits with Knapsackscited by 6
  6. 2023Bandits with Replenishable Knapsacks: the Best of both Worldscited by 6
  7. 2022Liquid Welfare Guarantees for No-Regret Learning in Sequential Budgeted Auctionscited by 5
  8. 2023Online Learning under Budget and ROI Constraints via Weak Adaptivitycited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

9 papers.