An Online Learning Theory of Brokerage
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.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".