Sequential Decision Making with Limited Observation Capability: Application to Wireless Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work studies a generalized class of restless multi-armed bandits with hidden states and allow cumulative feedback, as opposed to the conventional instantaneous feedback. We call them lazy restless bandits (LRB) as the events of decision-making are sparser than events of state transition. Hence, feedback after each decision event is the cumulative effect of the following state transition events. The states of arms are hidden from the decision-maker and rewards for actions are state dependent. The decision-maker needs to choose one arm in each decision interval, such that long term cumulative reward is maximized. As the states are hidden, the decision-maker maintains and updates its belief about them. It is shown that LRBs admit an optimal policy which has threshold structure in belief space. The Whittle-index policy for solving LRB problem is analyzed; indexability of LRBs is shown. Further, closed-form index expressions are provided for two sets of special cases; for more general cases, an algorithm for index computation is provided. An extensive simulation study is presented; Whittle-index, modified Whittle-index and myopic policies are compared. Lagrangian relaxation of the problem provides an upper bound on the optimal value function; it is used to assess the degree of sub-optimality various policies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".