Online Search with Best-Price and Query-Based Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the online (time-series) search problem, a player is presented with a sequence of prices which are revealed in an online manner. In the standard definition of the problem, for each revealed price, the player must decide irrevocably whether to accept or reject it, without knowledge of future prices (other than an upper and a lower bound on their extreme values), and the objective is to minimize the competitive ratio, namely the worst case ratio between the maximum price in the sequence and the one selected by the player. The problem formulates several applications of decision-making in the face of uncertainty on the revealed samples. Previous work on this problem has largely assumed extreme scenarios in which either the player has almost no information about the input, or the player is provided with some powerful, and error-free advice. In this work, we study learning-augmented algorithms, in which there is a potentially erroneous prediction concerning the input. Specifically, we consider two different settings: the setting in which the prediction is related to the maximum price in the sequence, as well as well as the setting in which the prediction is obtained as a response to a number of binary queries. For both settings, we provide tight, or near-tight upper and lower bounds on the worst-case performance of search algorithms as a function of the prediction error. We also provide experimental results on data obtained from stock exchange markets that confirm the theoretical analysis, and explain how our techniques can be applicable to other learning-augmented applications.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".