Papers for

revenue management teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Stochastic optimization algorithm improves learning with limited feedback

Beyond Monotonicity: Stochastic Online Optimization under Semi-Bandit Feedback

Abstract: We study stochastic online optimization (SOO) under semi-bandit feedback: in each of $T$ rounds, a policy adaptively observes $n$ independent random variables with unknown distributions, learning only from observed values. First-order stochastic dominance (FSD) monotonicity enables general reductions for learning SOO, but can fail when observations change future feasibility, resource use, or reference points. Our algorithm runs the dynamic program for the optimal policy, replacing each expectation by its most optimistic value over a confidence set of distributions. Its regret depends on the level-set complexity $s_i$ of the computed values as functions of the $i$th variable: the number of intervals needed to describe their superlevel sets. For rewards in $[0,1]$, the regret is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{ST})$ without this monotonicity, where $S=\sum_{i=1}^n\min\{s_i,k_i\}$ and $k_i$ is the support size of the $i$th distribution, which may be infinite when $s_i$ is finite. For constant level-set complexities, regret is $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{nT})$, even for continuous distributions. The algorithm requires no knowledge of $s_i$, $k_i$, or the supports, and it also achieves regret $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{nkT})$ for supports of size at most $k$ without any level-set condition, which improves the previous bound $\tilde{O}(n(\sqrt{kT}+k))$ for FSD-monotone problems. We also prove a lower bound of $Ω(\min\{T,\sqrt{ST}\})$ for all positive integers $s_1,\ldots,s_n$ with $k_i=2s_i+1$, which holds even under full feedback and matches the upper bound up to logarithmic factors. We obtain $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{nT})$ regret for these problems, all nonmonotone under FSD: stochastic Boolean function evaluation, the full-information secretary problem, optimal stopping with loss aversion, scheduling with deadlines and correlated stochastic knapsack with unimodal rewards, and overbooking with group reservations.

Mon 2 NovMachine Learning
The gist
This paper looks at how to make good decisions when you only get partial feedback after each choice and things can change unpredictably. The authors create a new method that learns from just parts of the outcomes and adapts by being optimistic about uncertain information. Their approach works well even when previous simplifying assumptions do not hold, and it guarantees low regret, meaning it doesn’t lose much compared to the best possible strategy over time. They also prove that their method is nearly as good as any could possibly be, even in harder situations.
Open → 2611.02739v1

Regret bounds reveal effects of feedback in adversarial bandits

m-Set Adversarial Bandits with Winner Feedback

Abstract: We show upper and lower bounds on the regret of $m$-set adversarial bandits for different utilities (winner reward or sum of rewards) and feedback models (winner index, winner reward, sum of rewards, and their combinations). By comparing to standard bounds for combinatorial and MNL bandits, our results reveal how subtle changes in the setting can have a dramatic impact on the learning rates. Our main technical contributions are the information-theoretic lower bounds on the regret. Experiments on synthetic data confirm our theoretical analyses.

Wed 7 OctMachine Learning
The gist
This paper studies how well machines can learn to choose sets of options when the outcomes are controlled by an adversary rather than random processes. It looks at how different ways of receiving feedback—like seeing just the winner or the sum of rewards—affect the speed of learning. The authors provide mathematical limits on how much ‘regret’ (or lost opportunity) the learner can accumulate under these scenarios. Their results show that small changes in the feedback design can greatly impact learning efficiency. They confirm their findings with experiments on synthetic data.
Open → 2610.10128v1

Combining deep learning and linear programming cuts dynamic programming errors

Bellman Error Minimization Via Linear Programming Normalization

Abstract: This paper proposes a new functional approximation approach to reduce Bellman error in high-dimensional dynamic programming and Reinforcement Learning problems. Using a classic dynamic programming problem (network capacity control in revenue management) as the motivational example, the paper illustrates that deep neural networks and linear programming approximation algorithms can be combined to derive approximate solutions to dynamic programming problems. Simulation results show the proposed approximation algorithms achieves competitive performance when compared with benchmark.

Fri 2 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Dynamic programming helps make decisions over time but can be hard in large problems. The authors show how using deep learning together with a math technique called linear programming can better estimate solutions to these problems. They tested their approach on a network control problem and found it works well compared to existing methods. This method aims to reduce errors in the Bellman equation, a key tool for planning and learning.
Open → 2610.02730v1