#01Nov 12, 2026
cs.LG
Introducing Feedback Delays to Non-Delayed Adversarial MDPs: Optimal $\sqrt S$ and $\sqrt K$ Dependencies in Tabular and Linear AMDPs
Aarush Kulkarni, Khang Nguyen, William Chang and 1 more
We study regret minimization in episodic Adversarial Markov Decision Processes (AMDPs) with unknown transitions and bandit feedback. In tabular AMDPs with $S$ states, $A$ actions, and horizon $H$, the best known $K$-episode regret is $\tilde O(HS\sqrt{AK})$, whose $\sqrt S$ gap to the $Ω(H\sqrt{SAK})$ lower bound has long remained open. In linear AMDPs with $d$-dimensional features, after a five-year line of improvements starting from $K^{14/15}$, computationally efficient algorithms without a simulator or exploratory assumptions still only attain $\tilde O(K^{3/4})$ regret. A common challenge in both settings is to estimate the Q-function of a changing policy: past data comes from earlier policies that differ from (and are correlated with) the current one, while freezing the policy for future episodes worsens the dependency on $K$. We instead propose a general technique called introduced feedback delays: we estimate the Q-function of the policy using future episodes while still updating the policy, as if the feedback were delayed. While feedback delays are usually an obstacle imposed by the environment, here they are introduced voluntarily and, perhaps surprisingly, come at no extra cost. We develop Geometric Resampling with Rejection (GRR) to account for policy changes during the delay, and threshold the visitation probabilities to avoid long delays on rarely visited state-action pairs. With this unified technique, our policy optimization algorithms achieve, with high probability, $\tilde O(\text{poly}(H)\sqrt{SAK})$ regret in tabular AMDPs, resolving the open problem; and $\tilde O(\text{poly}(d,H)\sqrt K)$ regret in linear AMDPs, giving the first efficient algorithm optimal in $K$. They also naturally extend to delayed AMDPs with a total feedback delay $\mathfrak D$, yielding the first bounds optimal in $S$ and $\mathfrak D$ (tabular) and in $K$ and $\mathfrak D$ (linear).
#02Nov 12, 2026
stat.ME
When Both Sides Adapt: The Challenges of Evaluating Interactive LLM Systems
Hannah Li
In interactive systems where users engage with LLMs, users are adaptive and, after observing LLM responses, can change their prompting strategy, as well as the type and difficulty of subsequent tasks. Thus model responses can influence the set of prompts on which the model is subsequently evaluated. We study the implications of this user adaptivity and prompt endogeneity for the evaluation of LLMs. We define two classes of estimands for comparing models: the common-distribution effect, which compares model performance on the same distribution of prompts, and the induced-distribution effect, which compares each model on the prompt distribution generated through user interaction. We show that offline benchmark evaluation and live A/B testing target different quantities, with the standard difference-in-means estimators for the two methods converging to the common-distribution effect and the induced-distribution effect, respectively. This distinction can affect decision-making: the two comparisons can rank models differently and lead to discrepancies in deployment recommendations. We characterize when such ranking reversals occur and provide a sufficient condition under which the rankings are guaranteed to agree. This result provides a practical heuristic for assessing whether offline evaluation is sufficient to reproduce the decision suggested by a live experiment. Third, we show, in a stylized linear model of interactions, that user adaptivity can increase variance in estimation. Finally, we discuss implications of user adaptivity for the interpretation of experiments and show that adaptivity creates a common mechanism leading to common evaluation challenges, such as reward hacking and novelty effects. Together, this work highlights the necessity of measuring both model performance as well as changes in the user behavior that the model induces.
#03Nov 12, 2026
cs.LG
Towards a Theory of Learnability via Debate
Tosca Lechner, Vinayak Pathak, Sivan Sabato and 1 more
Debate has been recently proposed as a training protocol that is hoped to produce more aligned models even as model capabilities scale. The idea is that the human, instead of providing supervision in the form of labels, judges a debate between two models that compete to prove the correctness of opposite labels. It can be shown that functions of a much higher computational complexity can be correctly judged in this way, compared to the complexity of functions that can be directly evaluated using a computationally weak evaluator. This suggests that perhaps debate can be used to teach very complicated functions to models. However, previous work has largely ignored the fact that this is a training protocol, and simply analyzes the game being played between the two debaters for a known judge. We take the first steps towards understanding the learning problem implicit within the protocol, by formulating it as an online learning problem. We show that once we formulate the learning problem precisely, there are cases where the best way to learn given access to a judge is different from running an adversarial debate. This motivates us to define a cooperative version of the protocol, whose learnability we characterize using a combinatorial dimension. We also consider the possibility of the human judge being fallible and occasionally judging the debate incorrectly. We show that a small number of errors in judgement can lead to a large error in learning.
#04Nov 12, 2026
cs.DS
Combinatorial Bernoulli Factories with Polynomially Many Coins
Renato Paes Leme, Rad Niazadeh
We provide an efficient implementation of combinatorial Bernoulli factories. Such a factory turns coins of unknown biases $x$ into a random vertex of a polytope $P$ whose mean is exactly $x$. For every affine slice of the cube (the class of polytopes that admit a factory), we give a single algorithm whose expected number of coin flips and running time at every interior $x$ are polynomial in the dimension and in $1/{δ_*}$, where ${δ_*}=\min_i\{x_i,1-x_i\}$ is never supplied to the algorithm. For perfect matchings this gives $O(n^{8}{δ_*}^{-2}\log(n/{δ_*}))$ flips, while the factory of Niazadeh, Paes Leme, and Schneider [STOC 2021] spends at least $n^{2n-1}$ flips in expectation at the uniform doubly stochastic matrix. For other polytopes, our method rounds exactly given a point deep inside $P$ and the promise that $x$ is far from the boundary of $P$.
#05Nov 12, 2026
cs.CY
Scalable Conversational Assessment: Chat-Based Exams with a Two-Agent LLM Pipeline
Geoffrey Challen, Craig Zilles
Oral exams are compelling because (1) students can be asked to provide their reasoning for an answer and (2) their interactive nature permits follow-up questions to resolve ambiguous answers. But oral exams scale poorly. In this paper, we present scalable conversational assessment, an LLM-based system that conducts interactive text-based conversations with students to assess their ability to make and support an argument. We use a two-agent architecture to separate concerns and reduce the likelihood that answers are leaked to the student: the interviewer interacts directly with the student, but only receives guidance about the next question to ask the student; the hidden evaluator knows the goals of the whole activity, tracks the student's progress using a rubric, and guides the interviewer on when to follow-up on the current question or proceed to the next question. The system was first tested using a collection of simulated students with LLM personas of a particular ability level or adversarial tactic (e.g., answer-extractors, prompt-injectors, confident fabricators). A novel element of this evaluation was that it required the use of a fictional assessment topic to prevent personas that shouldn't have information from using knowledge present in the LLM's pre-training. The system was also deployed in a small, elective AI literacy course in both formative and summative contexts. Through manual and post-facto AI review of the transcripts we identified opportunities to improve the follow-up question generation and ensure that grading only credited ideas that the student (and not the interviewer) contributed.