UCB-based Algorithms for Multinomial Logistic Regression Bandits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out of the rich family of generalized linear bandits, perhaps the most well studied ones are logisitc bandits that are used in problems with binary rewards: for instance, when the learner/agent tries to maximize the profit over a user that can select one of two possible outcomes (e.g., `click' vs `no-click'). Despite remarkable recent progress and improved algorithms for logistic bandits, existing works do not address practical situations where the number of outcomes that can be selected by the user is larger than two (e.g., `click', `show me later', `never show again', `no click'). In this paper, we study such an extension. We use multinomial logit (MNL) to model the probability of each one of $K+1\geq 2$ possible outcomes (+1 stands for the `not click' outcome): we assume that for a learner's action $\mathbf{x}_t$, the user selects one of $K+1\geq 2$ outcomes, say outcome $i$, with a multinomial logit (MNL) probabilistic model with corresponding unknown parameter $\bar{\boldsymbol\theta}_{\ast i}$. Each outcome $i$ is also associated with a revenue parameter $\rho_i$ and the goal is to maximize the expected revenue. For this problem, we present MNL-UCB, an upper confidence bound (UCB)-based algorithm, that achieves regret $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(dK\sqrt{T})$ with small dependency on problem-dependent constants that can otherwise be arbitrarily large and lead to loose regret bounds. We present numerical simulations that corroborate our theoretical results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".