The study of repeated interactions between a learner and a utility-maximizing optimizer has yielded deep insights into the manipulability of learning algorithms. However, existing literature primarily focuses on independent, unlinked rounds, largely ignoring the ubiquitous practical reality of budget constraints. In this paper, we study this interaction in repeated second-price auctions in a Bayesian setting between a learning agent and a strategic agent, both subject to strict budget constraints, showing that such cross-round constraints fundamentally alter the strategic landscape. First, we generalize the classic Stackelberg equilibrium to the Budgeted Stackelberg Equilibrium. We prove that an optimizer's optimal strategy in a budgeted setting requires time-multiplexing; for a $k$-dimensional budget constraint, the optimal strategy strictly decomposes into up to $k+1$ distinct phases, with each phase employing a possibly unique mixed strategy (the case of $k=0$ recovers the classic Stackelberg equilibrium where the optimizer repeatedly uses a single mixed strategy). Second, we address the intriguing question of non-manipulability. We prove that when the learner employs a standard Proportional controller (the "P" of the PID-controller) to pace their bids, the optimizer's utility is upper bounded by their objective value in the Budgeted Stackelberg Equilibrium baseline. By bounding the dynamics of the PID controller via a novel analysis, our results establish that this widely used control-theoretic heuristic is actually strategically robust.
We study repeated general games over $T$ rounds between a utility-maximizing optimizer and a learning agent, where budget constraints couple the players' decisions across rounds. Without budgets, low swap regret simultaneously guarantees the learner sublinear regret and caps the optimizer at its Stackelberg value. Budgets break this picture: adversarial no-regret becomes impossible, so the natural goals are non-manipulability---no adaptive optimizer earns more than $\mathtt{BSE} \cdot T + o(T)$, where $\mathtt{BSE}$ is its Budgeted Stackelberg Equilibrium value---and low stochastic regret when the optimizer plays a fixed mixed strategy. We give an efficient, budget-feasible learning algorithm that achieves both goals in every budgeted game: any adaptive optimizer, budgeted or not, earns at most $\mathtt{BSE} \cdot T + O(\sqrt{T})$ in expectation, and if the optimizer plays a fixed mixed strategy on each of a constant number of intervals, the learner has $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret on each such interval. Our learner best responds to forecasts of the optimizer's play that are calibrated in two novel senses, since under budgets the calibration that prevents manipulation no longer yields low stochastic regret. Response calibration, which conditions on the learner's own mixed response by embedding its continuous mixing weight as a step function in $L^2([-1,1])$, prevents manipulation without discretizing responses; dual-weighted Lagrangian calibration ensures low regret. Although low calibration error requires randomized forecasts---distributions over a continuous space that need not have a succinct representation or be directly computable---we construct such forecasts in polynomial time by simulating online gradient ascent.
Swap regret is a notion that has proven itself to be central to the study of general-sum normal-form games, with swap-regret minimization leading to convergence to the set of correlated equilibria and guaranteeing non-manipulability against a self-interested opponent. However, the situation for more general classes of games -- such as Bayesian games and extensive-form games -- is less clear-cut, with multiple candidate definitions for swap-regret but no known efficiently minimizable variant of swap regret that implies analogous non-manipulability guarantees. In this paper, we present a new variant of swap regret for polytope games that we call ``profile swap regret'', with the property that obtaining sublinear profile swap regret is both necessary and sufficient for any learning algorithm to be non-manipulable by an opponent (resolving an open problem of Mansour et al., 2022). Although we show profile swap regret is NP-hard to compute given a transcript of play, we show it is nonetheless possible to design efficient learning algorithms that guarantee at most $O(\sqrt{T})$ profile swap regret. Finally, we explore the correlated equilibrium notion induced by low-profile-swap-regret play, and demonstrate a gap between the set of outcomes that can be implemented by this learning process and the set of outcomes that can be implemented by a third-party mediator (in contrast to the situation in normal-form games).