arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1911.05949

Online Second Price Auction with Semi-bandit Feedback Under the Non-Stationary Setting

Haoyu Zhao·Wei Chen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we study the non-stationary online second price auction problem. We assume that the seller is selling the same type of items in $T$ rounds by the second price auction, and she can set the reserve price in each round. In each round, the bidders draw their private values from a joint distribution unknown to the seller. Then, the seller announced the reserve price in this round. Next, bidders with private values higher than the announced reserve price in that round will report their values to the seller as their bids. The bidder with the highest bid larger than the reserved price would win the item and she will pay to the seller the price equal to the second-highest bid or the reserve price, whichever is larger. The seller wants to maximize her total revenue during the time horizon $T$ while learning the distribution of private values over time. The problem is more challenging than the standard online learning scenario since the private value distribution is non-stationary, meaning that the distribution of bidders' private values may change over time, and we need to use the \emph{non-stationary regret} to measure the performance of our algorithm. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to study the repeated auction in the non-stationary setting theoretically. Our algorithm achieves the non-stationary regret upper bound $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\min\{\sqrt{\mathcal S T}, \bar{\mathcal{V}}^{\frac{1}{3}}T^{\frac{2}{3}}\})$, where $\mathcal S$ is the number of switches in the distribution, and $\bar{\mathcal{V}}$ is the sum of total variation, and $\mathcal S$ and $\bar{\mathcal{V}}$ are not needed to be known by the algorithm. We also prove regret lower bounds $\Omega(\sqrt{\mathcal S T})$ in the switching case and $\Omega(\bar{\mathcal{V}}^{\frac{1}{3}}T^{\frac{2}{3}})$ in the dynamic case, showing that our algorithm has nearly optimal \emph{non-stationary regret}.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.DScs.GTstat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Haoyu Zhao, Wei Chen. 2019-11-14. Online Second Price Auction with Semi-bandit Feedback Under the Non-Stationary Setting. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.05949

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗