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
We investigate brokerage between traders from an online learning perspective. At any round t, two traders arrive with their private valuations, and the broker proposes a trading price. Unlike other bilateral trade problems already studied in the online learning literature, we focus on the case where there are no designated buyer and seller roles: each trader will attempt to either buy or sell depending on the current price of the good. We assume the agents' valuations are drawn i.i.d. from a fixed but unknown distribution. If the distribution admits a density bounded by some constant M, then, for any time horizon T: If the agents' valuations are revealed after each interaction, we provide an algorithm achieving regret M log T and show this rate is optimal, up to constant factors. If only their willingness to sell or buy at the proposed price is revealed after each interaction, we provide an algorithm achieving regret √M T and show this rate is optimal, up to constant factors. Finally, if we drop the bounded density assumption, we show that the optimal rate degrades to √T in the first case, and the problem becomes unlearnable in the second.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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 it