Bandits with Delayed Feedback

A system often has to act long before it learns whether the act worked: a recommender sees a click in seconds and a purchase in days. With $K$ actions and a delay of $d$ rounds, the best rate known for this setting is $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{(K+d)T})$ over $T$ rounds, so a longer menu is always more expensive to learn from. It need not be: if the outcome depends on the action only through the state it produced, then one late outcome informs every action that could have produced the observed state, and the price is set by how many genuinely different states the actions produce rather than by how many actions there are. We measure this using an effective dimension $v_t$ between $1$ and the number of states, and prove $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{(d+1)V\log K})$ for a rotating algorithm and $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{V^{-}}+\sqrt{dT})$ for the single-copy algorithm used in practice, for any budget fixed in advance; merging similar states lowers the price further, at an explicit bias. Even when given the exact losses from $d$ rounds ago, no algorithm escapes $Ω(\sqrt{dE\min\{1+\log J,T/d\}})$, where $J$ counts the drifting directions and $E$ bounds how far losses move while the learner waits. On generated data, the state channel cuts regret by up to 79 percent against action-level weighting and, on the funnel family, by 32 to 68 percent against a tuned minimax-optimal method.

Personalizing marketing messages with contextual multi-armed bandits (CMABs) drives real business value, yet the objective that ultimately matters - a downstream conversion - is observed only weeks later, too late to drive online learning. Teams therefore train the bandit on a fast proxy reward, and separately must judge whether a contextual bandit is worth its complexity over sending one best message. Settling both decisions with the usual offline checks - a batch off-policy estimate, a marginal arm-discrimination test, a confidence interval - can mislead systematically under delayed feedback. We give an ordered diagnostic protocol that screens a reward-and-policy candidate on two axes, alignment (does optimizing the reward move the north-star?) and learnability (can the bandit identify the reward-optimal policy?), before trusting any reported lift. We validate it where the truth is known - a public off-policy-evaluation benchmark and a controllable synthetic generator - and illustrate it on a deployed large-marketplace push system (where, with five arms and one split, the evidence is directional rather than powered). Two lessons recur. (N1) A single offline number can mis-rank rewards: a denser reward signal gives the bandit more to learn from, so rewards that look tied in a static estimate pull apart once learning happens online. (N2) If you cannot tell in advance which single message is best, a per-user policy partly just avoids betting on the wrong one - that looks like personalization but is really robustness, so a "personalization premium" is easily overstated. Our contribution is methodological rather than algorithmic: the ordered protocol, the two lessons it surfaces, and the end-to-end experience of applying it to a delayed-feedback CMAB.

In this paper, we study a sequential workforce management problem in a contingent labor setting with uncertainty in both worker production and labor supply. A firm seeks to maximize cumulative profit by maintaining an active team of fixed size while learning worker productivity over time. We emphasize two critical operational frictions in this problem: replacing workers is costly, and workers may not be available immediately for hiring because of, for example, prior job commitments, scheduling constraints, or onboarding procedures. Thus, hiring decisions take effect only after a random delay. We formulate this problem as a stochastic multi-play bandit with costly switching and delayed actions, and develop a learning-based hiring policy, DR-UCB (DelayedReplacement-UCB), that makes replacement and hiring decisions sequentially through learning cycles. In each cycle, the policy uses real-time production data to determine when to initiate workforce changes and which workers to replace and hire. We show that the leading-order regret of the proposed policy matches its lower bound in its dependence on the time horizon. Our numerical experiments show that DR-UCB outperforms benchmark policies.

We study stochastic linear bandits with delayed feedback under several delay models and establish near-optimal regret guarantees. Our results identify when delayed linear bandits exhibit the same qualitative behavior as multi-armed bandits (MAB), and when the linear structure creates fundamentally new challenges. Specifically, (1) for \emph{loss-independent delays}, where the delay does not depend on the realized loss (but potentially depends on the arm), we show that delays incur only an additive regret penalty. Under stochastic delays, this penalty scales with the expected delay, while under adversarial delays, it scales with the maximum number of outstanding observations. Notably, both delay penalties are dimension-free, improving upon the state-of-the-art results; (2) for \emph{loss-dependent delays}, we show that linear bandits are substantially harder than MAB: unlike in MAB, we prove matching (up to log factors) upper and lower bounds in linear bandits, whose delay penalty depends on the square root of the dimension. (3) for the \emph{delay-as-payoff model}, a special case of loss-dependent delay, we show that the optimal MAB guarantee, which depends only on the delay of the optimal arm, is also unattainable in linear bandits. Together, these results provide a sharp characterization of how delayed feedback interacts with linear generalization.

Contextual dueling bandits form a cornerstone of preference-based decision-making, with critical applications in recommender systems and large language model alignment. However, standard algorithms rely on the idealized assumption of immediate feedback, a condition frequently violated in real-world scenarios such as prompt optimization. This setting introduces a unique theoretical challenge: unlike linear bandits, dueling bandit estimators lack closed-form solutions, rendering naive adaptations of standard weighting techniques biased. To address this, we formalize the problem of Contextual Dueling Bandits with Stochastic Delayed Feedback and propose two novel algorithms: Linear (LDB-DF) and Neural (NDB-DF) Dueling Bandits with Delayed Feedback. Central to our approach is a novel estimator that integrates an Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) mechanism directly into the loss function, ensuring unbiased correction for delayed or missing feedback. We provide comprehensive theoretical analysis, establishing an O(d*sqrt(T)) regret bound for the linear setting and sub-linear guarantees for the neural setting. Extensive experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our propose.

We study adversarial multi-armed bandits with and without delayed feedback under a safety-aware goal: achieving minimax-optimal worst-case regret while keeping nearly constant regret relative to a designated "safe" baseline policy. Existing approaches can balance this trade-off with immediate feedback for smooth comparators, but arbitrary delays can mistime transitions between conservatism and exploration, endangering the safety guarantee. To bridge this gap, we propose Prudent-Banker, a novel algorithm that combines a delay-adapted variant of Online Mirror Descent with a modified phased-aggression mechanism. Its key technical contribution is a delay-calibrated restart threshold that rigorously accounts for the worst-case distortion induced by unobserved feedback and reliably detects comparator suboptimality. We also establish new lower bounds for safety-constrained adversarial delayed bandits, showing that the regret guarantees of Prudent-Banker are unimprovable, up to logarithmic factors, under the baseline-safety requirement. To the best of our knowledge, Prudent-Banker is the first algorithm to achieve the optimal safety--robustness trade-off: pseudo-regret $\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{T}+\sqrt{D})$ together with $\widetilde{O}(1)$ regret against the safe comparator, both with and without delays. Experiments across diverse delay distributions show that, unlike standard delay-robust baselines, Prudent-Banker effectively balances safety and learning.

We study linear dueling bandits in volatile environments characterized by the simultaneous presence of post-serving contexts, delayed feedback, and adversarial corruption. Feedback is subject to unknown stochastic or adversarial delays and a cumulative corruption budget $\mathcal{C}$. To address these challenges, we propose e RCDP-UCB, which integrates a learned approximator that predicts post-serving contexts from pre-serving information. It further employs an adaptive weighting strategy that clips feature vectors to mitigate the impact of corrupted and delayed observations simultaneously. Under standard regularity conditions and a parametric post-serving mapping, we rigorously establish that our algorithm is delay-regime-agnostic, achieving a regret upper bound of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(d(\sqrt{T} + \mathcal{C} + \mathcal{D}))$, where $d$ is the total feature dimension and $\mathcal{D}$ encapsulates the delay complexity. Crucially, our analysis reveals an additive cost structure between corruption and delay, avoiding the multiplicative degradation typical of prior works. We further establish lower bounds that nearly match our upper bounds up to a $\sqrt{d}$ factor for adversarial delays in the absence of post-serving contexts. Code is available at https://github.com/youngmin0oh/rcdp-public.

Increasingly, recommender systems are tasked with improving users' long-term satisfaction. In this context, we study a content exploration task, which we formalize as a bandit problem with delayed rewards. There is an apparent trade-off in choosing the learning signal: waiting for the full reward to become available might take several weeks, slowing the rate of learning, whereas using short-term proxy rewards reflects the actual long-term goal only imperfectly. First, we develop a predictive model of delayed rewards that incorporates all information obtained to date. Rewards as well as shorter-term surrogate outcomes are combined through a Bayesian filter to obtain a probabilistic belief. Second, we devise a bandit algorithm that quickly learns to identify content aligned with long-term success using this new predictive model. We prove a regret bound for our algorithm that depends on the Value of Progressive Feedback, an information-theoretic metric that captures the quality of short-term leading indicators that are observed prior to the long-term reward. We apply our approach to a podcast recommendation problem, where we seek to recommend shows that users engage with repeatedly over two months. We empirically validate that our approach significantly outperforms methods that optimize for short-term proxies or rely solely on delayed rewards, as demonstrated by an A/B test in a recommendation system that serves hundreds of millions of users.