analiza aiqbench
This paper is a theoretical machine learning study of Gaussian process bandits, where cheap model-based evaluations may disagree with costly trusted feedback and the learner must decide when to audit. Its regret bounds and audit-budget analysis are the main contributions, and the authors explicitly state that the AI-task replays do not validate a learned selective-verification method end to end. Readers building LLM prompt or agent-workflow optimizers should treat the results as synthetic-experiment evidence for a bandit design, not as a deployed recipe.
Gaussian Process Bandits for AI System Optimization with Selectively Verified Feedback
arXiv:2610.17760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Gaussian process bandits exploit similarities among configurations to optimize prompts, retrieval systems, and agent workflows. In these applications, however, inexpensive model-based evaluations can disagree with trusted task outcomes. We study selective verification when an action is chosen before a diagnostic is observed and trusted feedback is informative on an unknown set of diagnostic states. A finite reliability class and a finite RKHS signal dictionary describe these two sources of uncertainty. We construct a fixed audit design that combines reliability coverage with reward separation and establish a finite-time regret bound that accounts for a hard audit budget and the rounds needed to obtain informative observations. A safe adaptive extension mixes this robust design with predictable Chernoff allocations while preserving a uniform identification floor and exact expected acquisition-cost accounting. For signed-coordinate kernels, structured and diffuse reliability classes require different audit scales despite sharing the same reward geometry. Synthetic experiments distinguish these certified designs from an adaptive posterior heuristic and GP controls. Safe adaptive allocation reduces aggregate regret relative to the fixed design under the exact dictionary, but its finite-budget error certificate is numerically loose. Conditional-feedback errors can remove the heuristic's advantage and target perturbations can reverse it. Separate AI-task replays assess feedback correction and fitted-dictionary policies without establishing end-to-end validation of a learned selective-verification method.
Abstract:Gaussian process bandits exploit similarities among configurations to optimize prompts, retrieval systems, and agent workflows. In these applications, however, inexpensive model-based evaluations can disagree with trusted task outcomes. We study selective verification when an action is chosen before a diagnostic is observed and trusted feedback is informative on an unknown set of diagnostic states. A finite reliability class and a finite RKHS signal dictionary describe these two sources of uncertainty. We construct a fixed audit design that combines reliability coverage with reward separation and establish a finite-time regret bound that accounts for a hard audit budget and the rounds needed to obtain informative observations. A safe adaptive extension mixes this robust design with predictable Chernoff allocations while preserving a uniform identification floor and exact expected acquisition-cost accounting. For signed-coordinate kernels, structured and diffuse reliability classes require different audit scales despite sharing the same reward geometry. Synthetic experiments distinguish these certified designs from an adaptive posterior heuristic and GP controls. Safe adaptive allocation reduces aggregate regret relative to the fixed design under the exact dictionary, but its finite-budget error certificate is numerically loose. Conditional-feedback errors can remove the heuristic's advantage and target perturbations can reverse it. Separate AI-task replays assess feedback correction and fitted-dictionary policies without establishing end-to-end validation of a learned selective-verification method.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2610.17760 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.17760v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.17760 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 313 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · 15 aug. 2026

The Companies Building Quantum Computing Chips in 2026
The Quantum Insider · 5 iun. 2026

Faster Scientific Image Analysis with NVIDIA cuPhoton
NVIDIA · 7 oct. 2026