The multi-armed bandit problem under the mean-variance setting
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical multi-armed bandit problem involves a learner and a collection of arms with unknown reward distributions. At each round, the learner selects an arm and receives new information. The learner faces a tradeoff between exploiting the current information and exploring all arms. The objective is to maximize the expected cumulative reward over all rounds. Such an objective does not involve a risk-reward tradeoff, which is fundamental in many areas of application. In this paper, we build upon Sani et al. (2012)’s extension of the classical problem to a mean–variance setting. We relax their assumptions of independent arms and bounded rewards, and we consider sub-Gaussian arms. We introduce the Risk-Aware Lower Confidence Bound algorithm to solve the problem, and study some of its properties. We perform numerical simulations to demonstrate that, in both independent and dependent scenarios, our approach outperforms the algorithm suggested by Sani et al. (2012).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it