MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204874277 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.14733

Batched Bandits with Crowd Externalities

2021· preprint· en· W3204874277 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExternalityComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Batched Multi-Armed Bandits (BMAB), the policy is not allowed to be updated at each time step. Usually, the setting asserts a maximum number of allowed policy updates and the algorithm schedules them so that to minimize the expected regret. In this paper, we describe a novel setting for BMAB, with the following twist: the timing of the policy update is not controlled by the BMAB algorithm, but instead the amount of data received during each batch, called \textit{crowd}, is influenced by the past selection of arms. We first design a near-optimal policy with approximate knowledge of the parameters that we prove to have a regret in $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{\frac{\ln x}{x}}+ε)$ where $x$ is the size of the crowd and $ε$ is the parameter error. Next, we implement a UCB-inspired algorithm that guarantees an additional regret in $\mathcal{O}\left(\max(K\ln T,\sqrt{T\ln T})\right)$, where $K$ is the number of arms and $T$ is the horizon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.017 · 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