UCB-based Algorithms for Multinomial Logistic Regression Bandits
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it