MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W53582479

Regret Bounds for the Adaptive Control of Linear Quadratic Systems

2011· article· en· W53582479 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretLogarithmMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Upper and lower boundsQuadratic equationMathematicsControl (management)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the average cost Linear Quadratic (LQ) control problem with unknown model parameters, also known as the adaptive control problem in the control community. We design an algorithm and prove that apart from logarithmic factors its regret up to time T is O( T). Unlike previous approaches that use a forced-exploration scheme, we construct a high-probability confidence set around the model parameters and design an algorithm that plays optimistically with respect to this confidence set. The construction of the confidence set is based on the recent results from online least-squares estimation and leads to improved worst-case regret bound for the proposed algorithm. To the best of our knowledge this is the the first time that a regret bound is derived for the LQ control problem. 1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.370
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.077 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations213
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207