Game-Theoretic Bandits for Network Optimization With High-Probability Swap-Regret Upper Bounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study a multi-agent bandit problem in an unknown general-sum game repeated for a number of rounds (i.e., learning in a black-box game with bandit feedback), where a set of agents have no information about the underlying game structure and cannot observe each other’s actions and rewards. In each round, each agent needs to play an arm (i.e., action) from a (possibly different) arm set (i.e., action set), andonlyreceives the reward of theplayedarm that is affected by other agents’ actions. The objective of each agent is to minimize her own cumulative swap regret, where the swap regret is a generic performance measure for online learning algorithms. Many network optimization problems can be cast with the framework of this multi-agent bandit problem, such as wireless medium access control and end-to-end congestion control. We propose an online-mirror-descent-based algorithm and provide near-optimal high-probability swap-regret upper bounds based on refined martingale analyses, which can further bound the expected swap regret instead of the pseudo-regret studied in the literature. Moreover, the high-probability bounds guarantee that correlated equilibria can be achieved in a polynomial number of rounds if the algorithms are played by all agents. To assess the performance of the studied algorithm, we conducted numerical experiments in the context of wireless medium access control, and we performed emulation experiments by implementing the studied algorithms through the Linux Kernel for the end-to-end congestion control.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".