Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the adversarial online multi-task reinforcement learning setting, where in each of $K$ episodes the learner is given an unknown task taken from a finite set of $M$ unknown finite-horizon MDP models. The learner's objective is to minimize its regret with respect to the optimal policy for each task. We assume the MDPs in $\mathcal{M}$ are well-separated under a notion of $λ$-separability, and show that this notion generalizes many task-separability notions from previous works. We prove a minimax lower bound of $Ω(K\sqrt{DSAH})$ on the regret of any learning algorithm and an instance-specific lower bound of $Ω(\frac{K}{λ^2})$ in sample complexity for a class of uniformly-good cluster-then-learn algorithms. We use a novel construction called 2-JAO MDP for proving the instance-specific lower bound. The lower bounds are complemented with a polynomial time algorithm that obtains $\tilde{O}(\frac{K}{λ^2})$ sample complexity guarantee for the clustering phase and $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{MK})$ regret guarantee for the learning phase, indicating that the dependency on $K$ and $\frac{1}{λ^2}$ is tight.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".