Budget-First Tariff Recommendation (BFTR): A Complete Algorithmic Framework for Telecom Plan Recommendation without Overcharging

We study budget pacing in repeated first-price auctions when an advertiser's private-value distributions change over time and the stationary competing-bid distribution is unknown. We ask how a feasible expenditure plan should enter online bid shading, learning, and hard budget control. We establish a plan-to-performance decomposition for a plan-driven projected-dual policy. The policy uses any feasible expenditure plan as a soft target, learns an unknown stationary competing-bid CDF from thresholds revealed after each auction, and enforces the campaign budget on every sample path. Against a distribution-informed expected-budget fluid benchmark, the uniform-plan reward gap is $O(\sqrt T)+O(\mathcal W_T)$, where $\mathcal W_T$ measures heterogeneity in private-value distributions. With a supplied feasible plan, the global gap decomposes into a one-sided $O(\sqrt{T})$ fixed-plan execution term and a plan-mismatch term bounded by $(b/2a)PlanError$. The same analysis provides guarantees for strict and relaxed period-cap comparators, exact recovery of the global benchmark under a specific allowance vector, and separate lower bounds establishing the necessity of the temporal-heterogeneity and Plan Error terms. An upstream planner can translate forecasts or managerial priorities into a feasible spending trajectory, while the online controller adapts bids using realized thresholds and expenditures. The guarantee is modular: it evaluates the final normalized or projected plan through $PlanError$. A specific forecasting model can be linked to the guarantee by establishing how its primitive estimation errors propagate to this plan-quality metric.

We establish near-optimal regret bounds for budget-constrained online learning against arbitrary classes of budget-pacing experts in the adversarial setting. In particular, given any class of $F$ experts and a candidate budget pacing schedule, we provide a full-information algorithm which obtains regret $O(D \sqrt{\log F}+ \sqrt{T\log F})$ against all experts whose cumulative spending stays within distance $D$ of this schedule, matching lower bounds established by Braverman et al. (2025). We additionally show that our technique extends to various problems in online resource allocation, where the learner gets to see the rewards and costs of the current options available to them, and establish $O(D\sqrt{\log F})$ regret bounds when fractional allocation is allowed. This is the first algorithm we are aware of which can achieve $o(\sqrt{T})$ guarantees for such tasks.

On-demand delivery platforms pay riders through incentive activities whose tiers are set from recent completions of riders with a similar history. Operators request such plans for changing periods, rider populations, payment rules and budgets, often for holidays or bad weather, where randomized trials are scarce and take months to collect. We present a request-driven framework that composes four stages (conditional prediction, population reduction, trajectory integration and budget allocation) through seven replaceable modules that exchange conditional trajectory laws, whose award probabilities and award-marked moments give payment and uplift for any activity rule. A response-correction step reweights trajectories from abundant no-offer history to match the moments of a short pilot. We prove that, on a fixed plan menu and given the stage errors, the end-to-end value loss is bounded by the sum of four stage terms, and that for every stage there are instances on which omitting it leaves an error floor the others cannot remove. On 3,000 riders over 45 weekly origins, all 127 windows of a week are answered 11.04x faster with identical scenarios and at most 0.92% value lost by the allocation. On 24 new controlled response laws, the response correction with a one-week pilot lowers regret by 51.2% relative to a trial with the same nominal randomized rider-weeks, and a four-week pilot with exact summation comes within +0.007 of an 18-week trial. In registered studies where windows, populations, rules and binding budgets change from request to request, the framework's regret is below that of a trial with the same nominal rider-weeks and below dose interpolation of the same pilot data, and reusing its one-off preparation answers 60 requests 14.1x and 2.70x faster with identical answers. Against a nine-offer trial fitted with the framework's own dose curve, one-week regret is 0.055 lower.