One-Point Sampling for Distributed Bandit Convex Optimization With Time-Varying Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the distributed bandit convex optimization problem with time-varying constraints. In this problem, the global loss function is the average of all the local convex loss functions, which are unknown beforehand. Each agent iteratively makes its own decision subject to time-varying inequality constraints which can be violated but are fulfilled in the long run. For a uniformly jointly strongly connected time-varying directed graph, a distributed bandit online primal–dual projection algorithm with one-point sampling is proposed. We show that sublinear dynamic network regret and network cumulative constraint violation (CCV) are achieved if the path–length of the benchmark also increases in a sublinear manner. In addition, an$\mathcal {O}({T^{3/4 + g}})$static network regret bound and an$\mathcal {O}( {{T^{1 - {g}/2}}})$network CCV bound are established, where$T$is the total number of iterations and$g \in ( {0,1/4})$is a trade-off parameter. Moreover, a reduced static network regret bound$\mathcal {O}( {{T^{2/3 + 4g /3}}})$is established for strongly convex local loss functions. Finally, a numerical example is presented to validate the theoretical results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 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".