MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161571887 · doi:10.1145/1553374.1553524

Piecewise-stationary bandit problems with side observations

2009· article· en· W2161571887 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Science FoundationFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsRegretPiecewiseBaseline (sea)MathematicsPiecewise linear functionContrast (vision)Adversarial systemDistribution (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a sequential decision problem where the rewards are generated by a piecewise-stationary distribution. However, the different reward distributions are unknown and may change at unknown instants. Our approach uses a limited number of side observations on past rewards, but does not require prior knowledge of the frequency of changes. In spite of the adversarial nature of the reward process, we provide an algorithm whose regret, with respect to the baseline with perfect knowledge of the distributions and the changes, is O(k log(T)), where k is the number of changes up to time T. This is in contrast to the case where side observations are not available, and where the regret is at least Ω(√T).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207