Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Learning to Coordinate Under Threshold Rewards: A Cooperative Multi-Agent Bandit Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A decentralized team of agents can learn each arm's hidden activation threshold and reward distribution well enough to nearly match a centralized Oracle, despite decoy arms that mimic ordinary failures.

desk verdict The problem setting is genuinely new and worth knowing about, but Algorithm 1 as written has a load-bearing specification gap: for any finite failure-count parameter m, stochastic zero-reward streaks will push the estimated threshold of the optimal arm above M and permanently abandon it, so the near-Oracle claim cannot hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15856 v1 pith:LOKGO3PB submitted 2025-06-18 cs.MA

Michael Ledford , William Regli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MA
keywords cooperativemulti-agentbanditsthreshold-activatedrewardsdecentralizedcoordinationdecoyarmscoalitionformationUCBunknownthresholdslearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces a cooperative multi-agent bandit setting in which an arm pays out only when at least an unknown number of agents pull it simultaneously, and some arms are decoys that never pay. The authors propose T-Coop-UCB, a decentralized algorithm that maintains upper-confidence reward estimates together with learned estimates of each arm's activation threshold, and show empirically in a three-agent, five-arm environment that it approaches the reward of a centralized Oracle that knows everything. The claim matters because standard multi-agent bandit work either assumes rewards are individually attainable or that coordination requirements are known in advance; this setting removes both assumptions. The paper's central assertion is that joint threshold learning plus decoy avoidance is what closes most of the gap to the Oracle.

What carries the argument

T-Coop-UCB is a decentralized UCB algorithm in which each agent computes $\mathrm{UCB}_i(t)=\hat{\mu}_i(t)+\sqrt{2\log t / n_i(t)}$ from shared observations, sorts arms by UCB, and greedily assigns agents to arms according to the current threshold estimates $\hat{h}_i(t)$. The two coupled estimators do the work: the reward estimator is the standard sample mean updated only on successful activations, and the threshold estimator is a conservative rule that decreases $\hat{h}_i(t)$ when an arm succeeds with fewer agents than estimated and increases it only after $m$ consecutive failures at the current coalition size. This pair turns zero-reward feedback—ambiguous between stochastic failure, insufficient coalition size, and decoy arms—into a signal for both what to pull and how many agents to send.

What would settle it

Run an arm whose true threshold is 1 and whose success probability is small, say $p=0.05$, with $m$ set to any finite value. With one agent pulling, runs of $m$ failures occur with probability at least $(0.95)^m$, so the update rule 'if failure after $m$ attempts at coalition size, increase $\hat{h}_i(t)$' will push the threshold estimate above the true value even though the coalition size already satisfies the threshold; observing this in simulation would show that the threshold estimator cannot distinguish stochastic failure from insufficient coordination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated in the results: T-Coop-UCB 'consistently outperforms baseline methods in cumulative reward, regret, and coordination metrics, achieving near-Oracle performance.' Concretely, the paper argues that a team of decentralized agents, communicating freely but with no centralized action assignment and no prior knowledge of activation thresholds, can learn both the minimum coalition size and the reward distribution of every arm, and that this joint learning outperforms a cooperative UCB baseline that is told the true thresholds in advance. The environment that supports the claim is small (M=3 agents, K=5 arms, one decoy arm with zero reward, horizon 10,000 rounds, 30 runs), and the Oracle is a centralized policy with full knowledge of thresholds and success probabilities. The paper does not claim a formal regret bound; it reports empirical regret that tracks below an O(log T) reference in the tested setting.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $m$ consecutive failures with a given coalition size reliably mean the estimated threshold is too low; in the paper's own environment, the same zero-reward observation can come from a low success probability or from a decoy arm, and the paper does not specify a value for $m$ or an upper bound on the threshold estimate, so the estimator is not well-defined as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A decentralized team with free communication can jointly infer both which arms pay and how many agents each arm needs, without a central planner assigning actions.
  • Knowing the true thresholds in advance is not enough: Cooperative UCB1, which has the thresholds but cannot disambiguate ambiguous failures, underperforms T-Coop-UCB, so adaptive threshold learning carries the performance gain.
  • Decoy arms can be identified and avoided through shared reward feedback, even though they produce the same zero payoff as ordinary failures.
  • Empirical regret tracks below an O(log T) reference in the tested environment, indicating efficient structural learning, although no formal regret bound is claimed.
  • Because the best arm in the base environment requires all three agents, overcommitment is not an issue there; the framework's value in larger teams would require allocation across several worthwhile arms simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The threshold-update rule is under-specified in Algorithm 1: $m$ is listed as a parameter but never assigned, and no cap prevents $\hat{h}_i(t)$ from exceeding the number of agents $M$, so the pseudocode alone does not pin down a reproducible algorithm.
  • The ambiguity between stochastic failure and insufficient coalition size is structural: any algorithm that only sees aggregated zero reward must either accept false threshold increases or spend extra exploration on repeated trials, so the near-Oracle results may depend on the specific arm configuration used in the paper.
  • A natural testable extension is to compare T-Coop-UCB against a variant that tracks success probability at each coalition size separately, which would directly separate stochastic failure from threshold violation and likely improve sample efficiency.
  • In settings where the best strategy requires splitting agents across several valuable arms rather than sending the whole team to one arm, the greedy assignment step would need a load-balancing mechanism; that regime is not covered by the paper's experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Threshold-Coop-UCB (T-Coop-UCB), a decentralized multi-agent bandit algorithm for a setting in which each arm yields a reward only when a minimum (unknown) number of agents pull it simultaneously, and where some 'decoy' arms require coordination but give zero reward. Agents maintain synchronized estimates of activation thresholds and reward means, form coalitions greedily using UCB scores, and update threshold estimates on the basis of observed successes and failures. The authors evaluate T-Coop-UCB in one base environment (M=3 agents, K=5 arms) over T=10,000 rounds and compare it with Random, Independent UCB1, Cooperative UCB1 (known thresholds), and an Oracle policy. The reported results show that T-Coop-UCB approaches the Oracle in cumulative reward and regret, outperforming the baselines in cumulative reward, regret, and valid allocations. The paper includes no formal regret analysis; the claims are empirical and based on 30 averaged runs with 95% confidence intervals.

Significance. If the claimed empirical performance were backed by a fully specified, reproducible algorithm, the paper would address a genuinely interesting and underexplored MA-MAB variant: coordination requirements and decoy arms create ambiguous zero-reward feedback that standard decentralized bandit algorithms do not handle. The problem formulation is clean, and the comparison against an Oracle and several baselines is a sensible first evaluation. The strengths are the clearly stated setting, the use of averaged runs with confidence intervals, and the introduction of decoy arms as a structural challenge. However, the paper's contribution is entirely empirical, the experiments are limited to one small environment (M=3, K=5), no code is provided, and, most importantly, Algorithm 1 as written is incomplete. The central 'near-Oracle' claim therefore cannot currently be reproduced or trusted; these issues are fixable within the scope of the manuscript, which is why I am not recommending rejection, but they are load-bearing and require a major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Algorithm 1] The threshold update rule is not well-defined: the parameter m is declared in Algorithm 1 but never given a value in Section 5 or anywhere else, and the 'Increase ĥ_i(t)' branch has no upper bound and no reset or decrement mechanism other than the success-with-fewer-agents rule. In the base environment, Arm 2 has p_2=0.6 and h_2=3, so at the estimated threshold ĥ_2=3 each pull by the full team fails with probability 0.4; a run of m consecutive failures occurs with probability (0.4)^m per block, which for any reasonable m (e.g., m=3 gives 6.4% per block) is virtually certain over T=10,000 rounds. Once ĥ_2 is increased to 4, no coalition of M=3 agents can satisfy it, so Arm 2 is never pulled again and the estimate never decreases because the decrease rule fires only on a success with fewer agents. The near-Oracle results in Figures 2-4 therefore depend on an implicit choice of m or on an unstated safeguard. Please specify m, any cap on ĥ_i, and a complete reset/decrement rule, and report results across a range of m.
  2. [Section 4, Coalition Formation] The greedy assignment procedure is underspecified. The text says agents are 'assigned greedily to arms based on ĥ_i(t)' and that remaining unassigned agents are allocated 'to the next-best available arms, if feasible, or remain idle,' but there is no formal algorithm: no tie-breaking rule, no order in which arms are considered, no definition of feasibility, and no proof that all agents independently arrive at the same allocation. Because the paper claims decentralized coordination without centralized control, the mechanism by which synchronized estimates produce identical joint actions needs to be specified precisely. As written, the experiment is not reproducible from Algorithm 1 alone.
  3. [Section 6] The central empirical claims ('consistently outperforms,' 'near-Oracle performance') are supported only by visual inspection of plotted curves. There are no numerical tables of cumulative reward, regret, or valid allocations, and no statistical tests or per-run distributions beyond shaded 95% confidence intervals. Given that the entire contribution is empirical, the paper should report the numerical values underlying the figures, including confidence intervals, and state explicitly how 'near-Oracle' is measured (e.g., fraction of Oracle reward at the end of the horizon). This is necessary for the reader to assess whether the differences among T-Coop-UCB, Cooperative UCB1, and the Oracle are meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] There are several typographical and formatting errors: 'UA V' should be 'UAV', 'M USICAL CHAIRS' should be 'MUSICAL CHAIRS', and 'GAMEOF THRONES' should be 'GAME OF THRONES'. Please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [Section 6] In the text discussing Cooperative UCB1, the phrase 'its unable to tell' should be 'it is unable to tell'. Also, the claim that T-Coop-UCB 'mirrors the O(log T) regret bounds established in cooperative multi-agent bandits' is misleading because the paper provides no regret bound for T-Coop-UCB; the text should clearly distinguish an empirical analogy from a theoretical result.
  3. [Section 5] The experimental setup does not state the value of the failure threshold m used in the simulations, nor whether any cap was placed on ĥ_i(t). Please include these details in the experimental parameters.
  4. [General] The paper does not mention code availability or a supplementary implementation. Given that the contribution is empirical and the algorithm has several free parameters, providing code or at least a detailed pseudocode version with all tie-breaking rules would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; empirical claims are tested against an independent Oracle.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: T-Coop-UCB outperforms baselines and achieves near-Oracle performance. These claims are evaluated by simulation against an Oracle policy defined independently as a centralized policy with full knowledge of thresholds and reward distributions (Section 5). No parameter is fitted to the reported outcome metrics; the algorithm's hyperparameter m (failure count for threshold updates) is an input to Algorithm 1, not derived from or calibrated on the evaluation data. The paper makes no theoretical derivation that reduces to its inputs, and it contains no self-citations that carry load-bearing arguments. The cited related work (e.g., Auer et al. 2002 for UCB) provides standard algorithmic components, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that pre-determines the results. Concerns about the unspecified value of m and the potential for permanent abandonment of the optimal arm are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circularity, as they do not involve equations being equivalent by construction or fitted values being relabeled as predictions. Therefore, no circular step can be quoted from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of environmental assumptions (free perfect communication, stationary Bernoulli rewards, known coalition sizes) plus one unreported algorithm parameter m. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • failure threshold m = not reported
    Algorithm 1 line 2 lists m as the number of consecutive failures required before increasing the estimated threshold ĥi(t). The paper never gives its value or a sensitivity study, so all empirical results depend on an undocumented setting.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Communication is instantaneous and cost-free, so all agents share a consistent global state each round.
    Assumptions (3) and Algorithm 1 line 6. This is what lets the agents compute identical assignments without a central controller.
  • domain assumption Rewards are independent Bernoulli trials conditioned on satisfying the activation threshold.
    Formal model in Section 3: when N_i,t >= h_i, a Bernoulli trial with probability p_i determines the reward. Used in the reward update rule.
  • domain assumption Activation thresholds h_i and success probabilities p_i are fixed and stationary over time.
    Assumptions (1). Stationarity justifies averaging rewards over time and comparing cumulative regret.
  • domain assumption Agents know the coalition size N_i,t for each arm each round.
    The threshold update rule requires knowing whether success occurred 'with fewer agents than ĥi(t)'. This is implied by the synchronized communication but never stated explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Coordinate Under Threshold Rewards: A Cooperative Multi-Agent Bandit Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOKGO3PB

@misc{pith2026250615856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Coordinate Under Threshold Rewards: A Cooperative Multi-Agent Bandit Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOKGO3PB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15856}
}
read the original abstract

Cooperative multi-agent systems often face tasks that require coordinated actions under uncertainty. While multi-armed bandit (MAB) problems provide a powerful framework for decentralized learning, most prior work assumes individually attainable rewards. We address the challenging setting where rewards are threshold-activated: an arm yields a payoff only when a minimum number of agents pull it simultaneously, with this threshold unknown in advance. Complicating matters further, some arms are decoys - requiring coordination to activate but yielding no reward - introducing a new challenge of wasted joint exploration. We introduce Threshold-Coop-UCB (T-Coop-UCB), a decentralized algorithm that enables agents to jointly learn activation thresholds and reward distributions, forming effective coalitions without centralized control. Empirical results show that T-Coop-UCB consistently outperforms baseline methods in cumulative reward, regret, and coordination metrics, achieving near-Oracle performance. Our findings underscore the importance of joint threshold learning and decoy avoidance for scalable, decentralized cooperation in complex multi-agent

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15856 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UAV Coordinated Task. A team of three UAVs must choose among tasks with varying coordination requirements. Some tasks require multiple UAVs to activate a reward, while one is a de￾coy offering no payoff. Agents must learn which tasks are valuable and how many teammates are needed for success. with social choice theory, particularly regarding how groups can efficiently coordinate on mutually beneficial decisions with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative team regret over time. T-Coop-UCB rapidly approaches near-Oracle performance and consistently achieves lower regret than all baselines. While all learning-based methods exhibit sublinear regret, T-Coop-UCB empirically tracks below the O(log T) reference, indicating highly efficient learning. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals over 30 runs. Theoretical baselines (O(T), O(log T)) are scaled by the o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative team reward over time. T-Coop-UCB rapidly converges to near-optimal team performance, closely track￾ing the Oracle policy. Shaded regions represent 95% confidence in￾tervals over 30 independent runs. Per-Round Average Reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-round average reward over time. T-Coop-UCB rapidly converges to high average reward by successfully exploit￾ing high-value arms, while baselines without threshold learning or coordination lag behind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Valid allocations per arm across policies. An allocation is valid when the number of agents meets or exceeds an arm’s activa￾tion threshold. T-Coop-UCB consistently forms effective coalitions, outperforming baseline methods. ative UCB1 explores Arm 2 early on but lacks…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Threshold bandits, with and without cen- sored feedback

    [Abernethy et al., 2016] Jacob D Abernethy, Kareem Amin, and Ruihao Zhu. Threshold bandits, with and without cen- sored feedback. Advances In Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 29,

    work page 2016

  2. [13]

    Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules

    [Lai and Robbins, 1985] Tze Leung Lai and Herbert Rob- bins. Asymptotically efficient adaptive allocation rules. Advances in applied mathematics, 6(1):4–22,

    work page 1985

  3. [15]

    On distributed cooperative decision-making in multiarmed bandits

    [Landgren et al., 2016] Peter Landgren, Vaibhav Srivastava, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. On distributed cooperative decision-making in multiarmed bandits. In2016 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 243–248. IEEE,

    work page 2016

  4. [16]

    Social imitation in coopera- tive multiarmed bandits: Partition-based algorithms with strictly local information

    [Landgren et al., 2018] Peter Landgren, Vaibhav Srivastava, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. Social imitation in coopera- tive multiarmed bandits: Partition-based algorithms with strictly local information. In 2018 IEEE conference on de- cision and control (CDC), pages 5239–5244. IEEE,

    work page 2018

  5. [18]

    Bandit algorithms

    [Lattimore and Szepesv´ari, 2020] Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesv´ari. Bandit algorithms . Cambridge University Press,

    work page 2020

  6. [21]

    Decentralized coopera- tive stochastic bandits

    [Mart´ınez-Rubio et al., 2018] David Mart´ınez-Rubio, Varun Kanade, and Patrick Rebeschini. Decentralized coopera- tive stochastic bandits. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04468,

    arXiv 2018

  7. [22]

    Multi-player bandits–a musical chairs approach

    [Rosenski et al., 2016] Jonathan Rosenski, Ohad Shamir, and Liran Szlak. Multi-player bandits–a musical chairs approach. In International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, pages 155–163. PMLR,

    work page 2016

  8. [23]

    Balanced and incentivized learning with limited shared information in multi-agent multi-armed bandit

    [Shao et al., 2024] Junning Shao, Siwei Wang, and Zhixuan Fang. Balanced and incentivized learning with limited shared information in multi-agent multi-armed bandit. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Au- tonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages 2459– 2461,

    work page 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [25]

    Multi-player multi-armed bandits with finite share- able resources arms: Learning algorithms & applications

    [Wang et al., 2022] Xuchuang Wang, Hong Xie, and John Lui. Multi-player multi-armed bandits with finite share- able resources arms: Learning algorithms & applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13502, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [1979]

    Decentralized learning for multiplayer multiarmed bandits

    [Kalathil et al., 2014] Dileep Kalathil, Naumaan Nayyar, and Rahul Jain. Decentralized learning for multiplayer multiarmed bandits. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(4):2331–2345,

    2014

  3. [1985]

    Bayesian algorithms for decentralized stochas- tic bandits

    [Lalitha and Goldsmith, 2021] Anusha Lalitha and Andrea Goldsmith. Bayesian algorithms for decentralized stochas- tic bandits. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 2(2):564–583,

    2021

  4. [1995]

    Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem

    [Auer et al., 2002] Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, and Paul Fischer. Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem. Machine learning, 47:235–256,

    2002

  5. [2002]

    Communicating with unknown teammates

    [Barrett et al., 2014] Samuel Barrett, Noa Agmon, Noam Hazon, Sarit Kraus, and Peter Stone. Communicating with unknown teammates. In ECAI 2014 , pages 45–50. IOS Press,

    2014

  6. [2010]

    Decentralized heterogeneous multi- player multi-armed bandits with non-zero rewards on collisions

    [Magesh and Veeravalli, 2021] Akshayaa Magesh and Venu- gopal V Veeravalli. Decentralized heterogeneous multi- player multi-armed bandits with non-zero rewards on collisions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 68(4):2622–2634,

    2021

  7. [2012]

    Coordinated versus decentralized exploration in multi- agent multi-armed bandits

    [Chakraborty et al., 2017] Mithun Chakraborty, Kai Yee Phoebe Chua, Sanmay Das, and Brendan Juba. Coordinated versus decentralized exploration in multi- agent multi-armed bandits. In IJCAI, pages 164–170,

    2017

  8. [2014]

    Game of thrones: Fully distributed learning for multi- player bandits

    [Bistritz and Leshem, 2021] Ilai Bistritz and Amir Leshem. Game of thrones: Fully distributed learning for multi- player bandits. Mathematics of Operations Research , 46(1):159–178,

    2021

  9. [2016]

    Multi-agent multi-armed bandits with limited communication

    [Agarwal et al., 2022] Mridul Agarwal, Vaneet Aggarwal, and Kamyar Azizzadenesheli. Multi-agent multi-armed bandits with limited communication. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(212):1–24,

    2022

  10. [2017]

    Optimal cooperative multiplayer learning bandits with noisy rewards and no communication

    [Chang and Lu, 2023] William Chang and Yuanhao Lu. Optimal cooperative multiplayer learning bandits with noisy rewards and no communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06210,

    2023 arXiv

  11. [2018]

    Distributed cooperative deci- sion making in multi-agent multi-armed bandits

    [Landgren et al., 2021] Peter Landgren, Vaibhav Srivastava, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. Distributed cooperative deci- sion making in multi-agent multi-armed bandits. Automat- ica, 125:109445,

    2021

  12. [2019]

    Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems

    [Bubeck et al., 2012] S´ebastien Bubeck, Nicolo Cesa- Bianchi, et al. Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 5(1):1–122,

    2012

  13. [2020]

    Distributed learning in multi-armed bandit with multiple players

    [Liu and Zhao, 2010] Keqin Liu and Qing Zhao. Distributed learning in multi-armed bandit with multiple players. IEEE transactions on signal processing , 58(11):5667– 5681,

    2010

  14. [2021]

    Sic-mmab: Synchronisation involves communi- cation in multiplayer multi-armed bandits

    [Boursier and Perchet, 2019] Etienne Boursier and Vianney Perchet. Sic-mmab: Synchronisation involves communi- cation in multiplayer multi-armed bandits. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32,

    2019

  15. [2022]

    Gambling in a rigged casino: The adversarial multi-armed bandit problem

    [Auer et al., 1995] Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Yoav Freund, and Robert E Schapire. Gambling in a rigged casino: The adversarial multi-armed bandit problem. In Proceedings of IEEE 36th annual foundations of computer science, pages 322–331. IEEE,

    1995

  16. [2023]

    Bandit processes and dy- namic allocation indices

    [Gittins, 1979] John C Gittins. Bandit processes and dy- namic allocation indices. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 41(2):148–164,

    1979

  17. [2024]

    Ad hoc autonomous agent teams: Collaboration without pre-coordination

    [Stone et al., 2010] Peter Stone, Gal Kaminka, Sarit Kraus, and Jeffrey Rosenschein. Ad hoc autonomous agent teams: Collaboration without pre-coordination. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 24, pages 1504–1509,

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.