We consider two versions: sequential, where Bob observes Alice's cut

We address the question of repeatedly learning linear classifiers against agents who are \emph{strategically} trying to \emph{game} the deployed classifiers, and we use the \emph{Stackelberg regret} to measure the performance of our algorithms. First, we show that Stackelberg and external regret for the problem of strategic classification are \emph{strongly incompatible}: i.e., there exist worst-case scenarios, where \emph{any} sequence of actions providing \emph{sublinear} external regret might result in \emph{linear} Stackelberg regret and vice versa. Second, we present a strategy-aware algorithm for minimizing the Stackelberg regret for which we prove nearly matching upper and lower regret bounds. Finally, we provide simulations to complement our theoretical analysis. Our results advance the growing literature of learning from revealed preferences, which has so far focused on ``smoother'' assumptions from the perspective of the learner and the agents respectively.

We consider two versions: sequential, where Bob observes Alice's cut

We address the question of repeatedly learning linear classifiers against agents who are strategically trying to game the deployed classifiers, and we use the Stackelberg regret to measure the performance of our algorithms. First, we show that Stackelberg and external regret for the problem of strategic classification are strongly incompatible: i.e., there exist worst-case scenarios, where any sequence of actions providing sublinear external regret might result in linear Stackelberg regret and vice versa. Second, we present a strategy-aware algorithm for minimizing the Stackelberg regret for which we prove nearly matching upper and lower regret bounds. Finally, we provide simulations to complement our theoretical analysis. Our results advance the growing literature of learning from revealed preferences, which has so far focused on "smoother" assumptions from the perspective of the learner and the agents respectively.

We address the question of repeatedly learning linear classifiers against agents who are \emph{strategically} trying to \emph{game} the deployed classifiers, and we use the \emph{Stackelberg regret} to measure the performance of our algorithms. First, we show that Stackelberg and external regret for the problem of strategic classification are \emph{strongly incompatible}: i.e., there exist worst-case scenarios, where \emph{any} sequence of actions providing \emph{sublinear} external regret might result in \emph{linear} Stackelberg regret and vice versa. Second, we present a strategy-aware algorithm for minimizing the Stackelberg regret for which we prove nearly matching upper and lower regret bounds. Finally, we provide simulations to complement our theoretical analysis. Our results advance the growing literature of learning from revealed preferences, which has so far focused on smoother'' assumptions from the perspective of the learner and the agents respectively.

We introduce the application of online learning in a Stackelberg game pertaining to a system with two learning agents in a dyadic exchange network, consisting of a supplier and retailer, specifically where the parameters of the demand function are unknown. In this game, the supplier is the first-moving leader, and must determine the optimal wholesale price of the product. Subsequently, the retailer who is the follower, must determine both the optimal procurement amount and selling price of the product. In the perfect information setting, this is known as the classical price-setting Newsvendor problem, and we prove the existence of a unique Stackelberg equilibrium when extending this to a two-player pricing game. In the framework of online learning, the parameters of the reward function for both the follower and leader must be learned, under the assumption that the follower will best respond with optimism under uncertainty. A novel algorithm based on contextual linear bandits with a measurable uncertainty set is used to provide a confidence bound on the parameters of the stochastic demand. Consequently, optimal finite time regret bounds on the Stackelberg regret, along with convergence guarantees to an approximate Stackelberg equilibrium, are provided.

We consider the setting of repeated fair division between two players, denoted Alice and Bob, with private valuations over a cake. In each round, a new cake arrives, which is identical to the ones in previous rounds. Alice cuts the cake at a point of her choice, while Bob chooses the left piece or the right piece, leaving the remainder for Alice. We consider two versions: sequential, where Bob observes Alice's cut point before choosing left/right, and simultaneous, where he only observes her cut point after making his choice. The simultaneous version was first considered by Aumann and Maschler (1995). We observe that if Bob is almost myopic and chooses his favorite piece too often, then he can be systematically exploited by Alice through a strategy akin to a binary search. This strategy allows Alice to approximate Bob's preferences with increasing precision, thereby securing a disproportionate share of the resource over time. We analyze the limits of how much a player can exploit the other one and show that fair utility profiles are in fact achievable. Specifically, the players can enforce the equitable utility profile of $(1/2, 1/2)$ in the limit on every trajectory of play, by keeping the other player's utility to approximately $1/2$ on average while guaranteeing they themselves get at least approximately $1/2$ on average. We show this theorem using a connection with Blackwell approachability. Finally, we analyze a natural dynamic known as fictitious play, where players best respond to the empirical distribution of the other player. We show that fictitious play converges to the equitable utility profile of $(1/2, 1/2)$ at a rate of $O(1/\sqrt{T})$.