Multiobjective Lipschitz Bandits under Lexicographic Ordering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the multiobjective bandit problem under lexicographic ordering, wherein the learner aims to simultaneously maximize ? objectives hierarchically. The only existing algorithm for this problem considers the multi-armed bandit model, and its regret bound is O((KT)^(2/3)) under a metric called priority-based regret. However, this bound is suboptimal, as the lower bound for single objective multi-armed bandits is Omega(KlogT). Moreover, this bound becomes vacuous when the arm number K is infinite. To address these limitations, we investigate the multiobjective Lipschitz bandit model, which allows for an infinite arm set. Utilizing a newly designed multi-stage decision-making strategy, we develop an improved algorithm that achieves a general regret bound of O(T^((d_z^i+1)/(d_z^i+2))) for the i-th objective, where d_z^i is the zooming dimension for the i-th objective, with i in {1,2,...,m}. This bound matches the lower bound of the single objective Lipschitz bandit problem in terms of T, indicating that our algorithm is almost optimal. Numerical experiments confirm the effectiveness of our algorithm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".