MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4314947473 · doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992636

Achieving Logarithmic Regret via Hints in Online Learning of Noisy LQR Systems

2022· article· en· W4314947473 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Amin Akbari, Bahman Gharesifard, Tamás Linder

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRegretLogarithmSublinear functionMatrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationLimit (mathematics)Square rootMathematicsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of online adaptive control of a linear-quadratic system, where the true system transition parameters (matrices A and B) are unknown. The objective is to design and analyze algorithms that generate control policies with sublinear "regret", defined as the difference between the cumulative cost of the policies generated by the algorithm and the cumulative cost of the optimal policy. Recent studies show that when the system parameters are fully unknown, for any algorithm that only uses data from the past system trajectory, there is a choice of system parameters such that the algorithm at best achieves a square root regret, providing a hard fundamental limit on the achievable regret in general. However, it is known that (poly)-logarithmic regret is achievable when only matrix A or only matrix B is unknown. We prove a result, encompassing both of these scenarios, showing that (poly)logarithmic regret is achievable when both of these matrices are unknown, but a hint about them is given to the learner over time.1

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)Same topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207