MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4314946896 · doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992683

A modified Thompson sampling-based learning algorithm for unknown linear systems

2022· article· en· W4314946896 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

Venue2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretUpper and lower boundsNorm (philosophy)AlgorithmThompson samplingCombinatoricsQuadratic equationSampling (signal processing)Discrete mathematicsMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsMathematical analysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the Thompson sampling-based learning algorithm for controlling an unknown linear system with quadratic cost proposed in [1]. This algorithm operates in episodes of dynamic length and it is shown to have a regret bound of $\tilde {\mathcal{O}}\left( {\sqrt T } \right)$, where T is the time-horizon. The regret bound of this algorithm is obtained under a technical assumption on the induced norm of the closed loop system. We propose a variation of this algorithm that enforces a lower bound T<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">min</inf> on the episode length. We show that a careful choice of T<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">min</inf> (that depends on the uncertainty about the system model) allows us to recover the $\tilde {\mathcal{O}}\left( {\sqrt T } \right)$ regret bound under a milder technical condition about the closed loop system.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.249 · 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