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.
Sang Su Lee, Vineeth Loganathan, Shishir Dash +1cs.LG
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.
Reinforcement learning in real world environments often suffers from severe performance degradation due to delayed feedback. Existing approaches typically mitigate performance degradation caused by observation delays by constructing augmented states or predicting the true states. However, these methods often overlook the inherent discrepancy between delayed state and true states induced by stochastic MDP. We theoretically prove the existence of such a discrepancy and show that it leads to the degradation of the optimal policy. To address this challenge, we propose Diffusion Guided Uncertainty Aware Delayed Policy Optimization (DUPO). Our method explicitly models the relationship between delayed state message and the current state using a diffusion model, and leverages the resulting discrepancy estimates to weight delayed policies. Extensive experiments on continuous robotic control tasks with multiple stochastic delays demonstrate that DUPO consistently outperforms existing methods and remains effective even under long and random delay scenarios.
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.