Recycling History: Efficient Recommendations from Contextual Dueling Bandits

Jalal Etesami; Matthias Grossglauser; Pouria Fatemi; Suryanarayana Sankagiri

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Recycling History: Efficient Recommendations from Contextual Dueling Bandits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a history-constrained dueling bandit model in which each new recommendation is compared against an item the user has already consumed, and proves that a greedy algorithm with a short random warm-up achieves O(√T) regret.

desk verdict A genuinely new model for post-consumption preference elicitation with a likely-correct but not-yet-proven regret bound; the proof has a repairable gap in the key lemma application. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18841 v1 pith:5S4A3RML submitted 2025-08-26 cs.LG

Suryanarayana Sankagiri , Jalal Etesami , Pouria Fatemi , Matthias Grossglauser This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG MSC 68W2762L05

keywords contextualduelingbanditsrecommendersystemsregretboundsexplicitpreferencefeedbacklinearstochastictransitivitymatrixconcentrationrichhistoryexploration-exploitation

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 proposes a new bandit model for recommender systems: each round the algorithm recommends one item, and after the user has consumed it, asks the user to compare it with an item already consumed in the past. Because the regret for the past item was already paid when it was consumed, the algorithm can use that comparison purely to learn, at no additional regret. The central claim is that a short random exploration phase—only Õ(d) rounds—suffices to accumulate a 'rich' history of consumed items, after which a simple greedy algorithm (ROAM) achieves O(√T) cumulative regret with high probability. If correct, this shows recommenders can exploit the explicit comparisons users give after consumption—generally more reliable feedback than implicit choices—while matching the regret order of the best simultaneous-comparison algorithms. Simulations on synthetic data confirm the effect, with ROAM outperforming the concurrent-dueling baseline across its tuned hyperparameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rich-history condition (Definition 1): a history H_t is β-rich if for every pair of items x, x′ and every positive definite matrix A, ∥x − x′∥_A ≤ β max_{y∈H_t} ∥x − y∥_A. This condition bounds the critical ratio — ∥x_t − x*_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} / ∥x_t − y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} — by a constant, so the instantaneous regret at step t is dominated by β times the norm of the probing vector z_t = x_t − y_t, and the cumulative regret becomes a sum of probing-vector norms. Richness is established during the initial random exploration phase: the even-indexed differences x_{2t} − x_{2t−1} are i.i.d. and concentrate around Σ by a matrix concentration inequality, which yields both the β

What would settle it

Re-run the paper's simulation (d = 5, τ = 50, T = 1000) and record, for t > τ, the cumulative sum of the probing-vector norms ∥x_t − y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}}; if it grows faster than the Lemma 2 bound √(2dT log((4r²τ + T)/d)), or if the per-step inequality r_t ≤ αβ∥x_t − y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} fails on a sizable fraction of steps, the O(√T) claim would be falsified. A direct mathematical check is to prove or disprove that ∑_{t>τ} ∥x_t − y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} ≤ √(2dT log((4r²τ + T)/d)) under the rich-history and concentration conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: comparing a new recommendation against an already-consumed item is provably efficient at no extra regret. The proof hinges on a condition called rich history: after O(r²/λ_min(Σ)·log(d/δ)) rounds of random recommendation, history items are diverse enough that any candidate pair is probed by some history item within a constant factor β = 8r/√λ_min(Σ). Once history is rich, ROAM recommends greedily against the current estimate θ̂_t and picks comparison item y_t maximizing ∥x_t − y∥_{V_t^{-1}}, a pure exploration query that costs no regret. Theorem 1 bounds cumulative regret by O((r/(κ√λ_min(Σ))) d√T log(T/(dδ))) with probability at least 1 − 3δ — the same √T order as simultaneou

Load-bearing premise

The O(√T) guarantee rests on the assumption that the comparison vectors, summed over time, obey the same bound that is proven only for the recommendation-error vectors — the proof of Theorem 1 applies Lemma 2 to ∑∥x_t − y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} although the lemma is stated for ∑∥x*_t − x_t∥_{V_t^{-1}}, without supplying the missing argument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

History-constrained comparisons reach cumulative regret of order O(√T) with high probability—the same order as the concurrent model—and the comparison item contributes nothing to the regret.
After the short exploration phase (τ ≈ O(d log(d/δ)) under standard parameter scaling), ROAM needs no exploration-exploitation hyperparameter: x_t is chosen greedily and y_t is chosen purely for exploration.
Reusing consumed items for comparisons can yield materially lower regret than comparing two fresh items per round, as the ROAM-versus-CoLSTIM simulations show for all tested hyperparameter values.
The O(√T) guarantee is achieved while placing the comparison query after consumption, matching how explicit feedback is actually elicited in recommender systems.

Reading between the lines

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

The rich-history condition is a general separation principle: once past recommendations maintain directional diversity, the exploitation choice and the exploration query can be decoupled. The same idea should transfer to logistic-bandit and preference-alignment setups where comparisons against a fixed reference item are standard—a direction the paper only notes in passing.
The theory's β and τ are visibly conservative: simulations show the critical ratio sits far below 8r/√λ_min(Σ), and exploration beyond τ ≈ 10d only increases regret. A sharper analysis of the probing-vector sum would likely shrink both the stated τ and the final constant.
The free-comparison assumption is an idealization; a natural testable extension is to cap the number of comparisons per recommendation or restrict y_t to a sliding window of recent items, then measure how regret degrades as querying is rationed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The model is the real contribution. Letting the algorithm recycle consumed items as free comparison arms is a sensible and underexplored idea, and the paper states it cleanly: history-constrained CDB, regret only on the fresh recommendation, and a rich-history condition that the algorithm can certify via a short random exploration phase. The matrix-concentration argument that a few dozen random recommendations suffice to make history rich is new and, as far as I can tell, sound. The simulations are simple but do what they claim: they show ROAM beats CoLSTIM when regret is counted per item presented, and they confirm the critical ratio stays small in practice. The writing is clear and honest about the model's limitations, including the practical cost of free queries.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader and stress-test put it. Theorem 1's proof needs a bound on the sum of ||x_t - y_t||_{V_t^{-1}}, but Lemma 2 as printed bounds the sum of ||x*_t - x_t||_{V_t^{-1}}, and it is also mis-indexed (sum over i, summand uses t). So the central step that yields the O(sqrt(T)) regret is unverified. This is a genuine gap in the proof as written, not a matter of convention. It is also very likely repairable: since V_t updates with (x_t-y_t)(x_t-y_t)^T, the standard elliptical-potential lemma directly bounds the probing-vector sum. I would bet the theorem is true and the fix is a few lines. But the paper as submitted does not contain those lines, so the main result is not yet established.

Other issues are minor by comparison. There are small typos (Lemma 2 indexing, a stray "t" in the final bound). The extra 1/sqrt(lambda_min(Sigma)) factor is stated honestly as the cost of the asymmetric model. The experiments use only synthetic data, but for a theory paper that is fine. The related-work discussion is accurate: the concurrent CDB papers do not consider free reuse of history.

The right reader is a bandit theorist working on preference-based feedback or on exploration costs. I would bring this to a reading group despite the gap, because the model framing is worth discussing and the proof repair is a good exercise. If the authors fix Lemma 2 and the step around it, the paper becomes a solid extension of the CDB literature.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, not a desk reject. A competent referee will catch the gap, and the contribution is strong enough to justify a revision round.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new 'history-constrained' contextual dueling bandit model. At each round the learner recommends one item x_t; after consumption, the user compares it with an item y_t chosen from the history of previously consumed items. Regret is charged only for x_t. The proposed algorithm ROAM first runs a pure exploration phase of length τ, then recommends greedily w.r.t. the current MLE and chooses y_t to maximize the norm ∥x_t−y∥_{V_t^{−1}}. The main theorem claims cumulative regret O((r/(κ√λmin(Σ))) d√T log(T/(dδ))) with probability at least 1−3δ, provided τ = O(r^2/λmin(Σ) log(d/δ)). The proof introduces a 'rich history' condition and proves via matrix concentration that a short exploration phase creates a rich history. Synthetic experiments compare ROAM with CoLSTIM.

Significance. The model is well motivated and the idea of recycling consumed items as comparison arms without extra regret is a genuinely useful twist on concurrent contextual dueling bandits. If the proof is repaired, the O(√T) regret guarantee has the right order, and the absence of an exploration-exploitation hyperparameter is a practical strength. The rich-history lemma and its matrix-concentration proof are the main technical novelty. However, the paper's central theorem is not established as printed: the bound on the probing-vector sum in §3.2 is attributed to a lemma that bounds a different quantity. This is repairable with a standard elliptical-potential bound, but the bound must be stated and proved explicitly.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, proof of Theorem 1, step (ii)] The cumulative-regret proof reaches R_T ≤ 2rτ + αβ Σ_{t=τ+1}^T ∥x_t−y_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} and then says this follows from Lemma 2. Lemma 2 as printed bounds Σ_{i=τ+1}^{t+τ} ∥x_t^*−x_t∥_{V_t^{-1}}, not the probing-vector sum. The critical-ratio inequality has the form ∥x_t^*−x_t∥ ≤ β∥x_t−y_t∥, so it cannot be used to turn an upper bound on the former into an upper bound on the latter. The O(√T) conclusion therefore currently rests on an unproved bound. I expect the missing bound is the standard elliptical-potential lemma for z_t = x_t−y_t with V_{t+1}=V_t+z_t z_t^T; the authors should state and prove that lemma, or cite a precise statement of it, and use it in step (ii).
[Lemma 2] Lemma 2 is not a well-formed mathematical statement. The summation is over i from τ+1 to t+τ, but the summand ∥x_t^*−x_t∥_{V_t^{-1}} does not depend on i and reuses the outer t; the right-hand side also depends on t. As printed, the lemma cannot be instantiated. Please restate it with correct indices and, if it is a known result, give a source that actually contains that statement.
[Lemma 3 and Appendix A.3 (Lemma 9)] Lemma 3 asserts that after τ exploration rounds, H_t is 8r/√λmin(Σ)-rich for every t>τ. In the appendix, Lemma 9 proves the inequality for H_{2τ+1} (i.e., after 2τ rounds), using the pairs (x_{2t−1},x_{2t}), and the text says Lemma 3 follows by 'a change of notation from τ to 2τ.' This changes the exploration horizon in the statement of Lemma 3. Please make the correspondence explicit, e.g., by stating Lemma 3 for an exploration horizon 2τ with an adjusted universal constant, or by proving richness for H_{τ+1} directly.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1, line 5] The instruction 'Set y_t ← x_{t−1}' is undefined at t=1, since x_0 is not defined. Define an initialization (e.g., start comparisons at t=2) or specify x_0.
[Section 3, first paragraph after Lemma 2] The text says the lemmas can be traced to 'the seminal work on linear bandits [3]', but reference [3] is Saha (2021), not a linear-bandit paper. Presumably [5] (Abbasi-Yadkori et al.) or [9] (Li et al.) is intended.
[Appendix A.3, proof of Lemma 9] The proof states that z_t = x_{2t−1}−x_{2t} satisfies ∥z∥_2 ≤ r. Since each x has norm at most r, the difference has norm at most 2r. This does not change the asymptotic constants (C can be enlarged), but it should be corrected for rigor.
[Section 4, first paragraph and Figure 3] The sentence 'The default parameters used in the default important parameters' is garbled. Also, the comparison with CoLSTIM should state explicitly why charging ROAM one regret per round and CoLSTIM two regrets per round is fair, given that the models consume different numbers of items per round.
[Lemma 1] The bound in Lemma 1 is stated with a free variable t in the logarithm; in the final theorem this becomes T. It would be clearer to state 'for all t ≤ T'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1's regret bound is derived from external concentration and generalized-linear-bandit lemmas, not from the theorem's own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper proposes a new history-constrained dueling bandit model and proves an O(sqrt(T)) regret bound for ROAM. The derivation chain is: (i) Lemma 1 bounds ||theta* - hat theta_t||_{V_t} using an external GLB concentration result from Li et al. [9] via Saha [3]; (ii) Lemma 3, proved in the appendix from Vershynin's matrix concentration theorem [23], gives the rich-history critical-ratio bound ||x_t - x*_t|| <= beta ||x_t - y_t||; (iii) the cumulative regret then follows by summing instantaneous regrets and applying a bound on sum ||x_t - y_t||_{V_t^{-1}}, attributed to Lemma 2. None of these steps fits a parameter to the target regret or defines a quantity in terms of the final claim. The initial exploration length tau is also derived from matrix concentration (Lemma 11), not assumed equal to the theorem's claim. There is no self-citation load-bearing argument: references [3], [4], [9], and [23] are external and the authors do not rely on their own prior results. The main caveat is a correctness gap: Lemma 2 as printed bounds sum ||x*_t - x_t|| rather than sum ||x_t - y_t||, and its indexation is inconsistent, so the proof step applying it to the probing-vector sum is not justified as written. However, this is a missing/incorrect proof step, not circularity: the needed elliptical-potential bound on sum ||z_t||_{V_t^{-1}} is a standard external result and is not an input to the theorem. Thus the paper's derivation is self-contained against benchmarks and no circular reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The regret bound depends on the stated distributional and noise-model assumptions, on quoted lemmas from [3] and [9], and on an unverified sum-of-norms bound for the probing vectors. No free parameters are fitted; all constants in the analysis are universal or problem-dependent (r, lambda_min, kappa).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Utilities are linear: user preference theta* (unit norm) is fixed, item features are known, and utility is <x, theta*>.
Section 2, Basic Setup; defines regret and the MLE objective.
domain assumption Comparison outcomes follow linear stochastic transitivity with a known, smooth link F satisfying F(u)+F(-u)=1 and with kappa > 0.
Section 2 and Eq. (1); kappa appears inversely in Theorem 1 and Lemma 1.
domain assumption Context items are sampled i.i.d. from P with ||x||_2 <= r and Sigma = E[(x-y)(x-y)^T] positive definite.
Section 2; enables Lemmas 4/7 and the sufficient exploration length tau.
standard math Quoted Lemmas 1 and 2 from Saha (2021) and Li et al. (2017) are correct in the form used.
Section 3; Lemma 2 as printed is inconsistent with its use in Theorem 1's proof, so this assumption is currently unsatisfied.
standard math The matrix concentration theorem of Vershynin applies to the i.i.d. probing vectors.
Appendix A.2, Lemma 4; basis for the rich-history and lambda_min(V) >= 1 results.

invented entities (2)

History-constrained contextual dueling bandit model
purpose: Problem formulation where y_t is chosen from consumed history and incurs no regret.
New model proposed in Section 2; no external falsifiable handle.
Rich history property (Definition 1)
purpose: Condition on history diversity that bounds the critical ratio ||x_t - x*_t|| / ||x_t - y_t|| in any norm A.
Technical construct introduced in Section 3.1, proved to hold with high probability via Lemmas 3 and 9; internal to the analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recycling History: Efficient Recommendations from Contextual Dueling Bandits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5S4A3RML

@misc{pith2026250818841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recycling History: Efficient Recommendations from Contextual Dueling Bandits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5S4A3RML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18841}
}

abstract

The contextual duelling bandit problem models adaptive recommender systems, where the algorithm presents a set of items to the user, and the user's choice reveals their preference. This setup is well suited for implicit choices users make when navigating a content platform, but does not capture other possible comparison queries. Motivated by the fact that users provide more reliable feedback after consuming items, we propose a new bandit model that can be described as follows. The algorithm recommends one item per time step; after consuming that item, the user is asked to compare it with another item chosen from the user's consumption history. Importantly, in our model, this comparison item can be chosen without incurring any additional regret, potentially leading to better performance. However, the regret analysis is challenging because of the temporal dependency in the user's history. To overcome this challenge, we first show that the algorithm can construct informative queries provided the history is rich, i.e., satisfies a certain diversity condition. We then show that a short initial random exploration phase is sufficient for the algorithm to accumulate a rich history with high probability. This result, proven via matrix concentration bounds, yields $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret guarantees. Additionally, our simulations show that reusing past items for comparisons can lead to significantly lower regret than only comparing between simultaneously recommended items.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18841 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Variation of regret, error, and the key ratio as a function of exploration time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A comparison of ROAM with CoLSTIM, keeping all parameters identical. 5 Discussion Summary In this work, we propose a contextual bandit framework that learns from explicit comparisons between consumed items. The key idea is to reuse previously recommended items—incurring no new regret—for future comparisons. Our algorithm, ROAM, exploits this flexibility to accumulate a rich history within a short exploration time. … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Bobadilla, F

J. Bobadilla, F. Ortega, A. Hernando, and A. Gutiérrez. Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-Based Systems, 46:109–132, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Jingyan Wang and Nihar B. Shah. Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratings. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Optimal algorithms for stochastic contextual preference bandits

Aadirupa Saha. Optimal algorithms for stochastic contextual preference bandits. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 34, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Stochastic contextual dueling bandits under linear stochastic transitivity models

Viktor Bengs, Aadirupa Saha, and Eyke Hüllermeier. Stochastic contextual dueling bandits under linear stochastic transitivity models. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits

Yasin Abbasi-yadkori, Dávid Pál, and Csaba Szepesvári. Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 24, 2011

work page 2011
[6]

The k-armed dueling bandits problem

Yisong Yue, Josef Broder, Robert Kleinberg, and Thorsten Joachims. The k-armed dueling bandits problem. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 78(5):1538–1556, 2012

2012
[7]

Bandit algorithms

Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári. Bandit algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2020

2020
[8]

Preference- based online learning with dueling bandits: A survey

Viktor Bengs, Róbert Busa-Fekete, Adil El Mesaoudi-Paul, and Eyke Hüllermeier. Preference- based online learning with dueling bandits: A survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 22(7):1–108, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 23 references

[9]

Provably optimal algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits

Lihong Li, Yu Lu, and Dengyong Zhou. Provably optimal algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2017

2017
[10]

Schapire, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Masrour Zoghi

Miroslav Dudík, Katja Hofmann, Robert E. Schapire, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Masrour Zoghi. Contextual dueling bandits. In Proceedings of The 28th Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2015

2015
[11]

Efficient and optimal algorithms for contextual dueling bandits under realizability

Aadirupa Saha and Akshay Krishnamurthy. Efficient and optimal algorithms for contextual dueling bandits under realizability. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2022

2022
[12]

Pereira, Alberto Ueda, Gustavo Penha, Rodrygo L

Bruno L. Pereira, Alberto Ueda, Gustavo Penha, Rodrygo L. T. Santos, and Nivio Ziviani. Online learning to rank for sequential music recommendation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2019

2019
[13]

Carousel personalization in music streaming apps with contextual bandits

Walid Bendada, Guillaume Salha, and Théo Bontempelli. Carousel personalization in music streaming apps with contextual bandits. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020

2020
[14]

Contextual user browsing bandits for large-scale online mobile recommendation

Xu He, Bo An, Yanghua Li, Haikai Chen, Qingyu Guo, Xin Li, and Zhirong Wang. Contextual user browsing bandits for large-scale online mobile recommendation. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 2020. 10

2020
[15]

Online bandit learning with offline preference data

Akhil Agnihotri, Rahul Jain, Deepak Ramachandran, and Zheng Wen. Online bandit learning with offline preference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09574, 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, a...

2022
[17]

Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, 2023

2023
[18]

On the performance of thompson sampling on logistic bandits

Shi Dong, Tengyu Ma, and Benjamin Van Roy. On the performance of thompson sampling on logistic bandits. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2019

2019
[19]

Improved optimistic algorithms for logistic bandits

Louis Faury, Marc Abeille, Clement Calauzenes, and Olivier Fercoq. Improved optimistic algorithms for logistic bandits. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2020

2020
[20]

Instance-wise minimax-optimal algo- rithms for logistic bandits

Marc Abeille, Louis Faury, and Clement Calauzenes. Instance-wise minimax-optimal algo- rithms for logistic bandits. In Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2021

2021
[21]

Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice

Amos Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4):281, 1972

1972
[22]

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1974

1974
[23]

Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices

Roman Vershynin. Introduction to the non-asymptotic analysis of random matrices. In Com- pressed sensing: theory and applications , chapter 5, pages 210–268. Cambridge University Press, 2012. 11 A Remaining Proofs A.1 Basics of Symmetric Matrices Let S+ denote the set of posit...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bobadilla, F

J. Bobadilla, F. Ortega, A. Hernando, and A. Gutiérrez. Recommender systems survey. Knowledge-Based Systems, 46:109–132, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Jingyan Wang and Nihar B. Shah. Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratings. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Optimal algorithms for stochastic contextual preference bandits

Aadirupa Saha. Optimal algorithms for stochastic contextual preference bandits. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 34, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Stochastic contextual dueling bandits under linear stochastic transitivity models

Viktor Bengs, Aadirupa Saha, and Eyke Hüllermeier. Stochastic contextual dueling bandits under linear stochastic transitivity models. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits

Yasin Abbasi-yadkori, Dávid Pál, and Csaba Szepesvári. Improved algorithms for linear stochastic bandits. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 24, 2011

work page 2011

[6] [6]

The k-armed dueling bandits problem

Yisong Yue, Josef Broder, Robert Kleinberg, and Thorsten Joachims. The k-armed dueling bandits problem. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 78(5):1538–1556, 2012

2012

[7] [7]

Bandit algorithms

Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári. Bandit algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2020

2020

[8] [8]

Preference- based online learning with dueling bandits: A survey

Viktor Bengs, Róbert Busa-Fekete, Adil El Mesaoudi-Paul, and Eyke Hüllermeier. Preference- based online learning with dueling bandits: A survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 22(7):1–108, 2021

work page 2021