Multi-Armed Sampling Problem and the End of Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the framework of multi-armed sampling, which serves as the sampling counterpart to the optimization problem of multi-armed bandits. Our primary motivation is to rigorously examine the exploration-exploitation trade-off in the context of sampling. We systematically define plausible notions of regret for this framework and establish corresponding lower bounds. We then propose a simple algorithm that achieves near-optimal regret bounds. Our theoretical results suggest that, in contrast to optimization, sampling barely requires any exploration. To further connect our findings with those of multi-armed bandits, we define a continuous family of problems and associated regret measures that smoothly interpolate and unify multi-armed sampling and multi-armed bandit problems using a temperature parameter. We believe that the multi-armed sampling framework and our findings in this setting can play a foundational role in the study of sampling, including recent neural samplers, much like the role of multi-armed bandits in reinforcement learning. In particular, our work sheds light on the role of exploration (or lack thereof) and the convergence properties of algorithms for entropy-regularized reinforcement learning, fine-tuning of pretrained models and reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF).
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".