MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211129173 · doi:10.1017/9781108571401.003

Introduction

2020· book-chapter· en· W4211129173 on OpenAlexaff
Tor Lattimore, Csaba Szepesvári

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionBandit problems were introduced by William R. Thompson in an article published in 1933 in Biometrika.Thompson was interested in medical trials and the cruelty of running a trial blindly, without adapting the treatment allocations on the fly as the drug appears more or Figure 1.1 Mouse learning a T-maze.less effective.The name comes from the 1950s, when Frederick Mosteller and Robert Bush decided to study animal learning and ran trials on mice and then on humans.The mice faced the dilemma of choosing to go left or right after starting in the bottom of a T-shaped maze, not knowing each time at which end they would find food.To study a similar learning setting in humans, a 'two-armed bandit' machine was commissioned where humans could choose to pull either the left or the right arm of the machine, each giving a random pay-off with the distribution of pay-offs for each arm unknown to the human player.The machine was called a 'twoarmed bandit' in homage to the one-armed bandit, an old-fashioned name for a leveroperated slot machine ('bandit' because they steal your money).There are many reasons to care about bandit problems.Decision-making with uncertainty is a challenge we all face, and bandits provide a simple model of this dilemma.Bandit problems also have practical applications.We already mentioned clinical trial design, which researchers have used to motivate their work for 80 years.We can't point to an example where bandits have actually been used in clinical trials, but adaptive experimental design is gaining popularity and is actively encouraged by the US Food and Drug Administration, with the justification that not doing so can lead to the withholding of effective drugs until long after a positive effect has been established.While clinical trials are an important application for the future, there are applications where bandit algorithms are already in use.Major tech companies use bandit algorithms for configuring web interfaces, where applications include news recommendation, dynamic pricing and ad placement.A bandit algorithm plays a role in Monte Carlo Tree Search, an algorithm made famous by the recent success of AlphaGo.Finally, the mathematical formulation of bandit problems leads to a rich structure with connections to other branches of mathematics.In writing this book (and previous papers), we have read books on convex analysis/optimisation, Brownian motion, probability theory,

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5640.493

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207