Leveraging Observations in Bandits: Between Risks and Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imitation learning has been widely used to speed up learning in novice agents, by allowing them to leverage existing data from experts. Allowing an agent to be influenced by external observations can benefit to the learning process, but it also puts the agent at risk of following sub-optimal behaviours. In this paper, we study this problem in the context of bandits. More specifically, we consider that an agent (learner) is interacting with a bandit-style decision task, but can also observe a target policy interacting with the same environment. The learner observes only the target’s actions, not the rewards obtained. We introduce a new bandit optimism modifier that uses conditional optimism contingent on the actions of the target in order to guide the agent’s exploration. We analyze the effect of this modification on the well-known Upper Confidence Bound algorithm by proving that it preserves a regret upper-bound of order O(lnT), even in the presence of a very poor target, and we derive the dependency of the expected regret on the general target policy. We provide empirical results showing both great benefits as well as certain limitations inherent to observational learning in the multi-armed bandit setting. Experiments are conducted using targets satisfying theoretical assumptions with high probability, thus narrowing the gap between theory and application.
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 | 0.012 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".