Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ruodu Wang

dblp:49/9926 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Reinforcement learning · 33% Learning theory · 33% Trustworthy machine learning · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
bandit
0.512021
A unified framework for bandit multiple testing · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › risk control
false discovery rate control
0.512021
A unified framework for bandit multiple testing · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
multiple hypothesis testing
0.512021
A unified framework for bandit multiple testing · NeurIPS 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

sample complexity analysis · 0.5martingale · 0.5e-processes · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 A unified framework for bandit multiple testing
abstract
In bandit multiple hypothesis testing, each arm corresponds to a different null hypothesis that we wish to test, and the goal is to design adaptive algorithms that correctly identify large set of interesting arms (true discoveries), while only mistakenly identifying a few uninteresting ones (false discoveries). One common metric in non-bandit multiple testing is the false discovery rate (FDR). We propose a unified, modular framework for bandit FDR control that emphasizes the decoupling of exploration and summarization of evidence. We utilize the powerful martingale-based concept of "e-processes" to ensure FDR control for arbitrary composite nulls, exploration rules and stopping times in generic problem settings. In particular, valid FDR control holds even if the reward distributions of the arms could be dependent, multiple arms may be queried simultaneously, and multiple (cooperating or competing) agents may be querying arms, covering combinatorial semi-bandit type settings as well. Prior work has considered in great detail the setting where each arm's reward distribution is independent and sub-Gaussian, and a single arm is queried at each step. Our framework recovers matching sample complexity guarantees in this special case, and performs comparably or better in practice. For other settings, sample complexities will depend on the finer details of the problem (composite nulls being tested, exploration algorithm, data dependence structure, stopping rule) and we do not explore these; our contribution is to show that the FDR guarantee is clean and entirely agnostic to these details.
Ziyu Xu 0001, Ruodu Wang, Aaditya Ramdas
NeurIPS2