Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Calibration-Gated LLM Pseudo-Observations for Online Contextual Bandits

Maksim Pershin, Ivan Golovanov, Pavel Baltabaev, Natalia Trankova · Apr 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad. We propose augmenting Disjoint LinUCB with LLM pseudo-observations: after each round, a large language model predicts counterfactual rewards for the unplayed arms, and these predictions are injected into the learner as weighted pseudo-observations. The injection weight is controlled by a calibration-gated decay schedule that tracks the LLM's prediction accuracy on played arms via an exponential moving average; high calibration error suppresses the LLM's influence, while accurate predictions receive higher weight during the critical early rounds. We evaluate on two contextual bandit environments - UCI Mushroom (2-arm, asymmetric rewards) and MIND-small (5-arm news recommendation) - and find that when equipped with a task-specific prompt, LLM pseudo-observations reduce cumulative regret by 19% on MIND relative to pure LinUCB. However, generic counterfactual prompt framing increases regret on both environments, demonstrating that prompt design is the dominant factor, more important than the choice of decay schedule or calibration gating parameters. We analyze the failure modes of calibration gating on domains with small prediction errors and provide a theoretical motivation for the bias-variance trade-off governing pseudo-observation weight.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Automatic metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Accuracy, Calibration

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"The injection weight is controlled by a calibration-gated decay schedule that tracks the LLM's prediction accuracy on played arms via an exponential moving average; high calibration error suppresses the LLM's influence, while accurate predictions receive higher weight during the critical early rounds."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy, Calibration
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Contextual bandit algorithms suffer from high regret during cold-start, when the learner has insufficient data to distinguish good arms from bad.
  • We propose augmenting Disjoint LinUCB with LLM pseudo-observations: after each round, a large language model predicts counterfactual rewards for the unplayed arms, and these predictions are injected into the learner as weighted pseudo-observations.
  • The injection weight is controlled by a calibration-gated decay schedule that tracks the LLM's prediction accuracy on played arms via an exponential moving average; high calibration error suppresses the LLM's influence, while accurate predictions receive higher weight during the critical early rounds.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.