MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174263485

Cooperative and Stochastic Multi-Player Multi-Armed Bandit: Optimal Regret With Neither Communication Nor Collisions

2021· article· en· W3174263485 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

VenueConference on Learning Theory · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretRandomnessIntuitionComputer scienceMathematical economicsMathematical optimizationFictitious playMathematicsGame theoryMachine learningStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the cooperative multi-player version of the stochastic multi-armed bandit problem. We study the regime where the players cannot communicate but have access to shared randomness. In prior work by the first two authors, a strategy for this regime was constructed for two players and three arms, with regret \tilde{O(\sqrt{T}), and with no collisions at all between the players (with very high probability). In this paper we show that these properties (near-optimal regret and no collisions at all) are achievable for any number of players and arms. At a high level, the previous strategy heavily relied on a 2-dimensional geometric intuition that was difficult to generalize in higher dimensions, while here we take a more combinatorial route to build the new strategy.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.264 · 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