Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multiarmed bandit problem is a popular framework for studying the exploration versus exploitation trade-off. Recent applications include dynamic assortment design, Internet advertising, dynamic pricing, and the control of queues. The standard mathematical formulation for a bandit problem makes the strong assumption that the decision maker has a full characterization of the joint distribution of the rewards, and that “arms” under this distribution are independent. These assumptions are not satisfied in many applications, and the out-of-sample performance of policies that optimize a misspecified model can be poor. Motivated by these concerns, we formulate a robust bandit problem in which a decision maker accounts for distrust in the nominal model by solving a worst-case problem against an adversary (“nature”) who has the ability to alter the underlying reward distribution and does so to minimize the decision maker’s expected total profit. Structural properties of the optimal worst-case policy are characterized by using the robust Bellman (dynamic programming) equation, and arms are shown to be no longer independent under nature’s worst-case response. One implication of this is that index policies are not optimal for the robust problem, and we propose, as an alternative, a robust version of the Gittins index. Performance bounds for the robust Gittins index are derived by using structural properties of the value function together with ideas from stochastic dynamic programming duality. We also investigate the performance of the robust Gittins index policy when applied to a Bayesian webpage design problem. In the presence of model misspecification, numerical experiments show that the robust Gittins index policy not only outperforms the classical Gittins index policy, but also substantially reduces the variability in the out-of-sample performance. This paper was accepted by Dimitris Bertsimas, optimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".