Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 36 references

Hierarchical Placement Learning for Network Slice Provisioning

T0 review · 5 major / 7 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 A two-level bandit policy learns network-slice placement, admitting over 25% more requests in simulated edge networks.

desk verdict Sensible hierarchical bandit assembly for slice provisioning, honestly reported, but the headline gains are not statistically pinned and the single-cluster placement assumption is only partially validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06432 v1 pith:BL2SPG5Y submitted 2025-08-08 cs.NI

Jesutofunmi Ajayi , Antonio Di Maio , Torsten Braun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords networkslicingservicefunctionchainplacementhierarchicalmulti-armedbanditcombinatorialedgenetworksGeneralizedGiniIndexonlinelearning
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 addresses network slice provisioning: deciding which edge servers run the virtual functions of each service request. It proposes HELIOS, a two-level online learning policy that first picks a cluster of the network and then picks nodes within that cluster, treating placement as a hierarchical multi-armed bandit problem. The paper claims HELIOS beats five centralized baselines, reporting about 5% average node resource utilization while accepting over 25% more slice requests in certain simulated scenarios. The contribution matters because network slice placement is NP-hard and usually assumes full system knowledge; HELIOS instead learns to coordinate local decisions and scale with network size.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-level hierarchical multi-armed bandit. The high-level agent is a multi-objective contextual bandit that uses ridge regression to estimate per-cluster reward vectors and online gradient ascent on a Generalized Gini Index aggregation to choose a mixed strategy over clusters. The low-level agents run a simplified COMO-UCB algorithm to select a super arm—a subset of nodes—for each service function chain. Louvain community detection supplies the cluster partition that makes the hierarchy tractable.

What would settle it

Run HELIOS on a small network where an exact solver (e.g., a MILP) reveals that the optimal placement of a long service function chain crosses a Louvain community boundary. If HELIOS's acceptance ratio is not higher than the random baseline in that setting, or if the exact solver finds placements HELIOS cannot express, then the hierarchical-decomposition claim is false. The paper's existing GEANT experiments with 5 clusters already point in this direction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

HELIOS decomposes the network into connected communities using the Louvain method and assigns a low-level agent to each community. A high-level contextual bandit observes each cluster's resource state and the arriving request's features, then samples a cluster according to a mixed strategy that maximizes the Generalized Gini Index of expected multi-objective rewards. The chosen cluster's low-level combinatorial agent runs a simplified Combinatorial Multi-Objective UCB to select the set of nodes that host the service function chain. The paper's central claim is that this hierarchical decomposition yields a placement policy that, in online simulation on two real topologies, outperforms central

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchy assumes that cutting the network into Louvain communities does not separate the node combinations that an optimal placement would need; if the best placement of a service function chain spans a community boundary, the low-level agent in a single cluster can never choose it—and the paper's own GEANT results show this failure when the number of clusters exceeds three.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy works as reported, operators can scale placement decisions by adding clusters and local agents instead of solving a global NP-hard problem each time a request arrives.
  • The roughly 5% average node utilization suggests the learned policy spreads load thinly across nodes, which could reduce hot-spot congestion and leave headroom for bursty edge traffic.
  • The 25% acceptance-rate gain over full-topology baselines indicates that coordinated cluster selection plus local combinatorial search is a viable substitute for centralized learning.
  • The performance drop on the GEANT topology with more than three clusters gives a concrete design rule: the number of clusters must respect the average nodes-per-cluster available to the low-level agents.
  • The reported execution times show the hierarchical policy is slower than some baselines, implying the acceptance/utilization benefit comes at a latency cost that matters for real-time admission control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the low-level UCB treats each node as an independent arm, the policy does not explicitly model dependencies between VNF placements (e.g., latency between two functions); a testable extension would add a pairwise coupling term to the reward and check whether acceptance on small topologies improves.
  • The paper's own cluster-granularity result suggests a recursive partitioning scheme—splitting clusters only when node count is large—might recover performance on small topologies; the authors leave exactly that to future work.
  • The 8-dimensional context vector mixes resource availability and request features; replacing it with learned embeddings might handle heterogeneous resource types or non-linear reward dependencies that ridge regression cannot capture.
  • A head-to-head comparison against a near-optimal offline solver on a small network would reveal whether the 5% utilization is close to the Pareto frontier or simply a low-utilization local optimum produced by the decomposition.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper addresses online network slice provisioning in edge networks by formulating it as a Hierarchical Multi-Armed Bandit (HMAB) problem. The proposed solution, HELIOS, first partitions the physical network graph into Louvain communities; a high-level contextual bandit agent selects a cluster for each arriving service function chain (SFC) request, and a low-level combinatorial bandit agent (COMO-UCB) chooses the physical nodes within that cluster to host the VNFs. The reward is scalarized via a Generalized Gini aggregation function. The paper evaluates HELIOS on GEANT and DT2 topologies against five baselines (Random, ϵ-greedy, LinUCB, C2UCB, CTS) in terms of acceptance ratio, average CPU resource utilization, and execution time, reporting that HELIOS admits more requests (up to 97% on DT2) while achieving roughly 5% node utilization in some scenarios, and it examines how performance varies with the number of clusters.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is a lightweight, sample-efficient hierarchical alternative to deep-RL-based slice provisioning that exploits community structure to reduce the action space and coordinates multi-objective decisions across sub-domains. The use of a hierarchical bandit formulation for network slice placement appears novel, and the comparison against five baselines on two real topologies is a useful empirical starting point. However, the central claims rest on two pillars that are not yet convincingly established: (1) that restricting each SFC to a single Louvain community does not exclude near-optimal placements, and (2) that the reported quantitative results are statistically and arithmetically reliable. The paper itself acknowledges the first pillar is fragile (Section V-B.4), and the reported 5% utilization appears inconsistent with the stated simulation parameters. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract and scalability claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A/B and Fig. 4b] The hierarchical decomposition constrains every SFC to be placed entirely within one Louvain community, i.e., the LLA action space is P(K_k) for the selected cluster k. Louvain partitions are based only on graph topology, while placement optimality also depends on resource capacities and request requirements. The paper's own Section V-B.4 and Fig. 4b show that acceptance on GEANT degrades when |K|>3, attributed to clusters 'not contain[ing] an optimal combination of nodes.' This is a direct admission that the feasibility restriction can exclude good solutions. The central scalability claim therefore needs either an optimality-gap analysis of the single-community constraint or an ablation that relaxes it (e.g., an unconstrained low-level agent, or cross-cluster placements with a coordination cost). Without this, the reported gains could be an artifact of comparing a constrained policy aga
  2. [Section V-A and Figs. 3-4] Although Section V-B states 'we conduct 30 simulation runs and present the average performance,' no confidence intervals, error bars, or statistical tests are reported for acceptance ratio or utilization. The abstract's quantitative claims ('over 25% more slice requests', '5% average node resource utilization') are therefore not pinned down with any measure of variance. The reported differences could be within run-to-run noise, especially for Random and ϵ-greedy baselines. Please add standard deviations/confidence intervals and formal tests (e.g., paired tests across the 30 runs) for the headline comparisons, and define precisely how acceptance ratio and average utilization are averaged over time and requests.
  3. [Section IV-C, lines 30-38 and Eq. (12)] The LLA reward definition is ambiguous. In Section IV-B.2, X_t(S_k) is defined as a matrix in [0,1]^{|S_k|×(m+1)}, and Eq. (12) maximizes ||X_t(S)||. In Algorithm 1, line 33 returns X_t(S_k) and line 10 treats this as r_t ∈ R^{m+1}. It is unclear how the per-node, per-objective outcomes are aggregated into a single reward vector returned to the HLA, and whether the LLA's unweighted sum of UCB values across objectives (lines 31-32) is consistent with the GGI-weighted scalarization used by the HLA (Section IV-B.1). This ambiguity makes the algorithm irreproducible as stated and should be resolved with explicit equations.
  4. [Section V-A (Table I) and Fig. 4c] The reported average CPU utilization of approximately 5% on DT2 appears inconsistent with the stated parameters. With T=5000, λ=2 or 5, SFC length 2-4 (mean 3), per-VNF CPU requirements uniform in [5,50] (mean 27.5), request lifetimes uniform in [10,50] (mean 30), and 68 nodes with per-node capacities uniform in [5,1000] (mean ≈502, total ≈34,170), a rough calculation gives an expected load of at least λ·0.97·82.5·30/34170 ≈ 14% (λ=2) to 35% (λ=5) of total CPU capacity, before considering other resource types and congestion effects, not 5%. Please clarify the exact denominator for 'average resource utilization per node per time slot' (e.g., utilization averaged only over nodes that are used, or over active requests) and verify the simulation output. This is essential because the abstract features the 5% figure.
  5. [Section V-B.3 and Table II] The execution-time comparison is partial: Random and ϵ-greedy are omitted, and HELIOS is slower than C2UCB and CTS on GEANT and slower than CTS on DT2. The paper claims scalability, but the reported times do not show a clear scaling advantage over the learning baselines. If scalability is a contribution, please include all baselines and analyze scaling behavior with respect to network size and the number of clusters.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section V-A] Typo: 'random numbervt' should be 'random number v_t'.
  2. [Section V-B.3] Typo: 'our our hierarchical approach' should be 'our hierarchical approach'.
  3. [Section IV-B.2] 'the goal step of selecting' should likely be 'the goal of selecting'.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] Axis labels under the λ rows appear broken (e.g., 'λ=2' rendered as '=2'). Please correct the figure labels.
  5. [Algorithm 1] Line 5 has a double period ('clusters..'); also the initialization of UCB to +∞ for all t in line 3 is unusual since t is not yet defined at initialization.
  6. [Eq. (10)] The regret definition uses k* and k without fully defining the index over time; it should explicitly indicate that k* is the best action at time t and k is the action selected at time t.
  7. [Section IV-B.1] The relationship between the GGI weight vector w_o = 2^{-o+1} and the linear scalarization in Eq. (9) should be clarified; the GGF is non-linear, while Eq. (9) is linear, and the text does not reconcile these.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HELIOS is evaluated against independent baselines; reported gains are simulation outcomes, not derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. HELIOS formulates slice provisioning as a hierarchical multi-armed bandit problem (Eqs. 9–12) and learns cluster selection and combinatorial node selection online. The reported acceptance-ratio and utilization numbers come from simulations against five independent baselines on two topologies; they are not obtained by substituting fitted parameters back into the objective or by renaming an input as a prediction. The reward vector used by the bandits includes acceptance and utilization, and the evaluation metrics are the same quantities, but this is objective alignment rather than circular derivation: no equation reduces to an input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a predicted result. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation; the references to Louvain community detection, the Generalized Gini Index, and COMO-MAB are external standard methods. The cluster-decomposition feasibility assumption is a real correctness risk, and the paper itself acknowledges degraded performance on GEANT with more than three clusters, but that is an empirical limitation of the proposed approach, not a circularity in the claimed derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an algorithm assembly rather than a theoretical derivation. Its load-bearing choices are the cluster partition (|K|), the scalarization weights, and the bandit modeling assumptions. No new physical or system-level entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of clusters |K| = 3 or 5 (ablation over 1-10)
    The Louvain partition count directly defines the hierarchy. The paper evaluates 1-10 clusters and notes performance drops on GEANT after 3, but the main configuration is not fixed a priori (Table I lists {3, 5}).
  • GGI weights w_o = w_o = 2^{-o+1}
    Chosen from [26] to encode objective priorities; not fitted to the test data, but a free modeling choice that shapes the scalarized objective and hence the learned policy.
  • OGA iterations Z = 10
    Gradient ascent steps for the cluster selection mixed strategy; a hyperparameter with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Regularization gamma = 0.1
    Ridge regression regularization for the HLA; set by hand, no sensitivity analysis shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Linearity of expected cluster rewards: E[mu_{t,k} | X_{t,k}, a^h_{t,k}] = X_{t,k}^T theta* with a shared theta*
    Invoked in Section IV-B to justify ridge-regression contextual bandits. If the true reward is non-linear or non-stationary because the low-level agent is learning, the HLA's estimates can be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Network graphs have community structure that yields near-optimal subproblems
    Section IV-A assumes Louvain communities make independent cluster placements near-optimal. This is the load-bearing decomposition assumption, and the paper's own GEANT experiments show it fails for more than 3 clusters.
  • domain assumption Base-arm outcome independence in the combinatorial bandit
    Section IV-B.2 states 'the outcomes of the base arms in X_t are assumed to be independent'. In reality, placing multiple VNFs on the same node couples their rewards via shared capacity, which violates this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Placement Learning for Network Slice Provisioning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BL2SPG5Y

@misc{pith2026250806432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Placement Learning for Network Slice Provisioning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BL2SPG5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06432}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we aim to address the challenge of slice provisioning in edge-based mobile networks. We propose a solution that learns a service function chain placement policy for Network Slice Requests, to maximize the request acceptance rate, while minimizing the average node resource utilization. To do this, we consider a Hierarchical Multi-Armed Bandit problem and propose a two-level hierarchical bandit solution which aims to learn a scalable placement policy that optimizes the stated objectives in an online manner. Simulations on two real network topologies show that our proposed approach achieves 5% average node resource utilization while admitting over 25% more slice requests in certain scenarios, compared to baseline methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System Model and Storage (MB), as well as link-specific resources like Bandwidth (Mbit/s) for communication between servers. We define C n j as the maximum capacity of resource type j on a network node n ∈ N, and C q j as the maximum capacity of resource type j on a network link q ∈ E. To avoid ambiguity when aggregating these values, we define the total capacity for each category separately. The aggregated capacity… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HELIOS’ Operation over a Communication Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Acceptance Ratio Performance over the a.) GEANT and b.) DT2 Network Topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average Resource Utilization and Cluster-based Performance over the a.)-b) GEANT and c.)-d.) DT2 Network Topologies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    VNF and CNF Place- ment in 5G: Recent Advances and Future Trends,

    W. Attaoui, E. Sabir, H. Elbiaze, and M. Guizani, “VNF and CNF Place- ment in 5G: Recent Advances and Future Trends,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 4698–4733, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Function Splitting, Isolation, and Placement Trade-Offs in Network Slicing,

    W. da Silva Coelho, A. Benhamiche, N. Perrot, and S. Secci, “Function Splitting, Isolation, and Placement Trade-Offs in Network Slicing,”IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1920–1936, 2022

    work page 1920

  3. [3]

    Deep Rein- forcement Learning for Network Slice Placement and the DeepNetSlice Toolkit,

    A. Pasquali, V . Lomonaco, D. Bacciu, and F. Paganelli, “Deep Rein- forcement Learning for Network Slice Placement and the DeepNetSlice Toolkit,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning for Communication and Networking (ICMLCN) , 2024, pp. 76–81

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Hierarchical Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning for SFC Placement on Multiple Domains,

    N. Toumi, M. Bagaa, and A. Ksentini, “Hierarchical Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning for SFC Placement on Multiple Domains,” in 2021 IEEE 46th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 299–304

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Ant Colony based Online Learning Algorithm for Service Function Chain Deployment,

    Y . Mao, X. Shang, and Y . Yang, “Ant Colony based Online Learning Algorithm for Service Function Chain Deployment,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications , 08 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Rein- forcement Learning-Based Multi-Domain Network Slice Provisioning,

    Z. Wu, G. Ishigaki, R. Gour, C. Li, F. Mi, S. Talluri, and J. P. Jue, “Rein- forcement Learning-Based Multi-Domain Network Slice Provisioning,” in ICC 2023 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2023, pp. 1899–1904

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    5G Service Function Chain Provisioning: A Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Framework,

    T. D. Tran, B. Jaumard, Q. H. Duong, and K.-K. Nguyen, “5G Service Function Chain Provisioning: A Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Framework,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , pp. 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Resource Allocation for Network Slicing in Open RAN: A Hierarchical Learning Approach,

    K. Qiao, H. Wang, W. Zhang, D. Yang, Y . Zhang, and N. Zhang, “Resource Allocation for Network Slicing in Open RAN: A Hierarchical Learning Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Toward Safe and Accelerated Deep Reinforcement Learning for Next-Generation Wireless Networks,

    A. M. Nagib, H. Abou-zeid, and H. S. Hassanein, “Toward Safe and Accelerated Deep Reinforcement Learning for Next-Generation Wireless Networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 182–189, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Multi-Armed Bandit in Action: Optimizing Performance in Dynamic Hybrid Networks,

    S. Henri, C. Vlachou, and P. Thiran, “Multi-Armed Bandit in Action: Optimizing Performance in Dynamic Hybrid Networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1879–1892, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Dynamic Network Slice for Bursty Edge Traffic,

    R. Han, J. Wang, Q. Qi, D. Chen, Z. Zhuang, H. Sun, X. Fu, J. Liao, and S. Guo, “Dynamic Network Slice for Bursty Edge Traffic,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , pp. 1–16, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    GiPH: Generalizable Place- ment Learning for Adaptive Heterogeneous Computing,

    Y . Hu, C. Zhang, E. Andert, H. Singh, A. Shrivastava, J. Laudon, Y . Zhou, B. Iannucci, and C. Joe-Wong, “GiPH: Generalizable Place- ment Learning for Adaptive Heterogeneous Computing,” Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems , vol. 5, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    {AlpaServe}: Statistical Multiplexing with Model Parallelism for Deep Learning Serving,

    Z. Li, L. Zheng, Y . Zhong, V . Liu, Y . Sheng, X. Jin, Y . Huang, Z. Chen, H. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez et al., “{AlpaServe}: Statistical Multiplexing with Model Parallelism for Deep Learning Serving,” in 17th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ...

    2023

  6. [14]

    DINC: Toward Distributed In-Network Computing,

    C. Zheng, H. Tang, M. Zang, X. Hong, A. Feng, L. Tassiulas, and N. Zilberman, “DINC: Toward Distributed In-Network Computing,” Proc. ACM Netw., vol. 1, no. CoNEXT3, nov 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3629136

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Zeal: Rethinking Large-Scale Re- source Allocation with “Decouple and Decompose“,

    Z. Xu, F. Y . Yan, and M. Yu, “Zeal: Rethinking Large-Scale Re- source Allocation with “Decouple and Decompose“,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11447, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hierarchical Planning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Smart and Connected Communities,

    G. Pettet, A. Mukhopadhyay, M. J. Kochenderfer, and A. Dubey, “Hierarchical Planning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Smart and Connected Communities,” ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1–26, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Community Detection-Empowered Self-Adaptive Network Slicing in Multi-Tier Edge-Cloud System,

    C. Tian, H. Cao, J. Xie, S. Garg, M. Alrashoud, and P. Tiwari, “Community Detection-Empowered Self-Adaptive Network Slicing in Multi-Tier Edge-Cloud System,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2624–2636, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Experts in a Markov De- cision Process,

    E. Even-dar, S. M. Kakade, and Y . Mansour, “Experts in a Markov De- cision Process,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , L. Saul, Y . Weiss, and L. Bottou, Eds., vol. 17. MIT Press, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Regret Analysis for Hierarchical Experts Bandit Problem,

    Q. Guo, S. Wang, and J. Zhu, “Regret Analysis for Hierarchical Experts Bandit Problem,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.05622

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks,

    V . D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre, “Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , vol. 2008, no. 10, p. P10008, oct 2008. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742- 5468/2008/...

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Hierarchical Coordination for Emergency Responder Stationing,

    A. Sivagnanam, A. Pettet, H. Lee, A. Mukhopadhyay, A. Dubey, and A. Laszka, “Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning with Hierarchical Coordination for Emergency Responder Stationing,” in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. ICML’24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Bandit Based Optimization of Multiple Objectives on a Music Streaming Platform,

    R. Mehrotra, N. Xue, and M. Lalmas, “Bandit Based Optimization of Multiple Objectives on a Music Streaming Platform,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , ser. KDD ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computi...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Combinatorial Multi- Objective Multi-Armed Bandit Problem,

    D. ¨Oner, A. Karakurt, A. Eryılmaz, and C. Tekin, “Combinatorial Multi- Objective Multi-Armed Bandit Problem,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04039

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Generalized Gini Inequality Indices,

    J. A. Weymark, “Generalized Gini Inequality Indices,” Mathematical Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 409–430, 1981

    1981

  17. [25]

    On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decisionmaking,

    R. R. Yager, “On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decisionmaking,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 183–190, 1988

    1988

  18. [26]

    Multi-Objective Bandits: Optimizing the Generalized Gini Index,

    R. Busa-Fekete, B. Sz ¨or´enyi, P. Weng, and S. Mannor, “Multi-Objective Bandits: Optimizing the Generalized Gini Index,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70 , ser. ICML’17. JMLR.org, 2017, p. 625–634

    2017

  19. [27]

    Ridge Estimators in Logistic Regression,

    S. L. Cessie and J. V . Houwelingen, “Ridge Estimators in Logistic Regression,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 191–201, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Learning Context-Aware Probabilistic Maximum Coverage Bandits: A Variance- Adaptive Approach,

    X. Liu, J. Zuo, J. Wang, Z. Wang, Y . Xu, and J. C. Lui, “Learning Context-Aware Probabilistic Maximum Coverage Bandits: A Variance- Adaptive Approach,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2024-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2024, pp. 2189–2198

    2024

  21. [29]

    Online Combinatorial Optimization with Group Fairness Constraints,

    N. Golrezaei, R. Niazadeh, K. K. Patel, and F. Susan, “Online Combinatorial Optimization with Group Fairness Constraints,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 , K. Larson, Ed. International Joint Conferences on...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    The Internet Topology Zoo,

    S. Knight, H. X. Nguyen, N. Falkner, R. Bowden, and M. Roughan, “The Internet Topology Zoo,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1765–1775, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Caching Performance of Content Centric Networks under Multi-Path Routing (and more),

    D. Rossi and G. Rossini, “Caching Performance of Content Centric Networks under Multi-Path Routing (and more),” Relat´orio t ´ecnico, Telecom ParisTech, vol. 2011, pp. 1–6, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    A Contextual- Bandit Approach to Personalized News Article Recommendation,

    L. Li, W. Chu, J. Langford, and R. E. Schapire, “A Contextual- Bandit Approach to Personalized News Article Recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web , 2010, pp. 661–670

    2010

  25. [33]

    Contextual Combinatorial Bandit and its Application on Diversified Online Recommendation,

    L. Qin, S. Chen, and X. Zhu, “Contextual Combinatorial Bandit and its Application on Diversified Online Recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 2014 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 2014, pp. 461–469

    2014

  26. [34]

    Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Semi-Bandits,

    S. Wang and W. Chen, “Thompson Sampling for Combinatorial Semi-Bandits,” in Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Dy and A. Krause, Eds., vol. 80. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018, pp. 5114–5122. [Online]. ...

    2018

  27. [35]

    A Deep Contextual Bandit- Based End-to-End Slice Provisioning Approach for Efficient Allocation of 5G Network Resources,

    R. V . J. Dayot, I.-H. Ra, and H.-J. Kim, “A Deep Contextual Bandit- Based End-to-End Slice Provisioning Approach for Efficient Allocation of 5G Network Resources,” Network, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 370–388, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8732/2/3/23

    2022

  28. [36]

    Navigating in High-Dimensional Search Space: A Hierarchical Bayesian Optimization Approach,

    W. Li, T. Wang, and E. Yoneki, “Navigating in High-Dimensional Search Space: A Hierarchical Bayesian Optimization Approach,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23148

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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