MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Delay-Tolerant Constrained OCO with Application to Network Resource Allocation

2021· article· en· W3162671465 on OpenAlexaff
Juncheng Wang, Ben Liang, Min Dong, Gary Boudreau, Hatem Abou-Zeid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)Ontario Tech UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretComputer scienceMathematical optimizationBenchmark (surveying)Sequence (biology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Convex functionConvex optimizationResource allocationSublinear functionTerm (time)Regular polygonMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider online convex optimization (OCO) with multi-slot feedback delay, where an agent makes a sequence of online decisions to minimize the accumulation of time-varying convex loss functions, subject to short-term and long-term constraints that are possibly time-varying. The current convex loss function and the long-term constraint function are revealed to the agent only after the decision is made, and they may be delayed for multiple time slots. Existing work on OCO under this general setting has focused on the static regret, which measures the gap of losses between the online decision sequence and an offline benchmark that is fixed over time. In this work, we consider both the static regret and the more practically meaningful dynamic regret, where the benchmark is a time-varying sequence of per-slot optimizers. We propose an efficient algorithm, termed Delay-Tolerant Constrained-OCO (DTC-OCO), which uses a novel constraint penalty with double regularization to tackle the asynchrony between information feedback and decision updates. We derive upper bounds on its dynamic regret, static regret, and constraint violation, proving them to be sublinear under mild conditions. We further apply DTC-OCO to a general network resource allocation problem, which arises in many systems such as data networks and cloud computing. Simulation results demonstrate substantial performance gain of DTC-OCO over the known best alternative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207