MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005661940 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16901

Regret Bounds for Batched Bandits

2021· article· en· W3005661940 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchOffice of Naval ResearchInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCanada First Research Excellence FundNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRegretLogarithmMathematical optimizationSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceMulti-armed banditMathematicsAlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present simple algorithms for batched stochastic multi-armed bandit and batched stochastic linear bandit problems. We prove bounds for their expected regrets that improve and extend the best known regret bounds of Gao, Han, Ren, and Zhou (NeurIPS 2019), for any number of batches. In particular, our algorithms in both settings achieve the optimal expected regrets by using only a logarithmic number of batches. We also study the batched adversarial multi-armed bandit problem for the first time and provide the optimal regret, up to logarithmic factors, of any algorithm with predetermined batch sizes.

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)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.113 · 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