Corruption-Robust Sparse Linear Contextual Bandits with Knapsack Constraints
Organizations: Department of Industrial Engineering and Decision Analytics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
We study sparse linear contextual bandits with knapsack constraints under joint reward and consumption corruption. Consumption corruption creates a challenge beyond corrupted rewards: it affects not only statistical estimates, but also the recorded budget, resource prices, and stopping decisions that govern future allocation. We develop Robust Optimistic Primal--Dual (ROPD), an estimator-modular framework that combines corruption-aware confidence widths with online resource prices and a budget-safety rule. With concrete sparse implementation, ROPD achieves regret against a clean population-LP benchmark of under forced exploration and population-design coverage, and under on-policy realized-design coverage, for a supplied valid corruption bound under the stated proportional-budget scaling and fixed model/design parameters. When the corruption level is unknown, Shared-Grid adapts confidence radii around common point estimates fitted to a single realized history, incurring explicit initialization and master-comparison costs; its sharper on-policy guarantee additionally requires recommendation coverage. Both methods preserve observed budgets on every realization and bound clean resource violation by cumulative consumption corruption. These results connect corruption-robust sparse estimation with resource accounting, pricing, and stopping in high-dimensional online allocation.
Figures & tables
| Corruption information | Sampling | Coverage | Corruption-free term |
| Bound | Forced | Population design | |
| Bound | On-policy | Realized design | |
| Not supplied | Forced | Population design | |
| Not supplied | On-policy | Realized design and recommendation coverage |
| Quantity | Meaning | Observed by the learner? |
| clean conditional means | No | |
| clean noisy realizations before corruption | No | |
| clipped feedback after corruption | Yes, for the chosen action |
| Symbol | Meaning |
| Number of rounds, non-null actions, context coordinates, and resources. | |
| ; | Observed context and selected action at round ; resource-budget vector. |
| Clean conditional reward and consumption means used by the benchmark. | |
| Clean noisy realizations before corruption. | |
| Clipped corrupted feedback observed for the played action. | |
| Changes from clean to observed outcomes, measured after clipping. |
| Input | Definition and role |
| Operating budget used by the observed-consumption safety account; the default is . | |
| Deterministic supplied bound satisfying on every admissible realization. | |
| For , a positive scale satisfying Assumption 2.2 ; suffices. The reduced-budget calibration is described below. | |
| Multiplicative-weights stepsize for the resource-price distribution. | |
| Probability of a uniform non-null forced-exploration override; it is zero in on-policy mode. | |
| Action-specific retained-sample threshold before nontrivial sparse confidence is used. |
| Symbol | Definition and role |
| Prescribed cyclic initialization length, divisible by and subject to budget safety. | |
| Number of corruption candidates in . | |
| Number of actions including the null action, . | |
| Probability floor for each action on the master-controlled branch. | |
| EXP4.P confidence-bonus coefficient. | |
| Post-initialization active-round count of candidate recommending action before . |
| Experiment | Theory connection | Finite-sample question |
| Figure 1 | Theorem 4.1 , Corollary 4.2 | How absolute regret changes as a valid known corruption level increases. |
| Figure 2 | Theorem 5.2 , Corollary 5.3 | How much additional regret unknown corruption causes after accounting for each method’s clean finite-horizon cost. |
| Figure 3 | Joint reward–consumption model and the Reward-Only ablation | How the location of a fixed corruption budget across reward and resource channels changes performance. |
| Figure 4 | Proposition 2.1 and the pathwise parts of Theorems 4.1 – 5.2 | How over- and under-reported consumption affect stopping and clean resource use. |
| Channel | ROPD | Reward-Only Robust | Non-Robust PD |
| Reward | 0.0631 | 0.0673 | 0.0709 |
| Consumption | 0.5543 | 0.5551 | 0.5403 |
| Joint | 0.3019 | 0.3034 | 0.2939 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Symbol | Meaning |
| Indicator that round is active under the pre-action safety rule. | |
| Number of active rounds, . | |
| Dual regret against the best fixed resource-price vector in . | |
| Common event supplying the pointwise confidence interface. | |
| Clean cumulative recommendation-width bound supplied by the estimator interface. | |
| Additional cumulative width caused by retained response corruption. |
Contextual Bandits
Contextual bandits learn which action to take from features of each situation when only the chosen action’s reward is observed.
See all 152 papers