MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970168598

Surrogate Objectives for Batch Policy Optimization in One-step Decision Making

2019· article· en· W2970168598 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

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationEntropy (arrow of time)Artificial intelligenceMulti-armed banditConstrained optimization problemAction selectionAction (physics)Optimization problemState (computer science)Surrogate modelPrinciple of maximum entropyMachine learningMathematicsAlgorithmRegretPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate batch policy optimization for cost-sensitive classification and contextual bandits---two related tasks that obviate exploration but require generalizing from observed rewards to action selections in unseen contexts. When rewards are fully observed, we show that the expected reward objective exhibits suboptimal plateaus and exponentially many local optima in the worst case. To overcome the poor landscape, we develop a convex surrogate that is calibrated with respect to entropy regularized expected reward. We then consider the partially observed case, where rewards are recorded for only a subset of actions. Here we generalize the surrogate to partially observed data, and uncover novel objectives for batch contextual bandit training. We find that surrogate objectives remain provably sound in this setting and empirically demonstrate state-of-the-art performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.343 · 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