MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838526237 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2153

Robust Multiarmed Bandit Problems

2015· article· en· W1838526237 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBellman equationRobust optimizationDynamic programmingDynamic pricingDecision makerMulti-armed banditRegretMathematicsOperations researchEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.379
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it