mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

DataCupid: Stable Matching Repair for Training Data Acquisition with Delayed Feedback

arXiv 2610.12960 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.IT math.ITcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Matching repair after utility changes can reuse valid observations, but new evaluations must respect matching capacity and may return out of order. We study announced invalidations with bounded, possibly reward-dependent reporting delays and pending evaluations that do not occupy future matching capacity. Residualload repair (RLR) combines sound outcome certificates with batched matching schedules for unequal sample deficits. Its complete dyadic quota schedule admits a sharp issue-round bound with coefficient cb < 1.607 relative to the terminal residual endpoint load, together with separate delay and evidence-lifetime bounds. RLR-P monitors complete issue-order prefixes without changing the sampling plan before acceptance. With a deterministic pure oracle, a single-repair coupling from the same drained initial state guarantees no increase in certification time, issued observations, or time to a reusable checkpoint. We also derive an information-load lower bound. On fixed priority-star markets with unknown Bernoulli gaps, PrioritySearch attains the history-adjusted first-order constant for expected certification time as δ ~ 0, under hypothesis-independent linear history scaling and sublogarithmic reporting delays. Paired simulations and measured-feedback replay quantify the trade-offs: in the replay, RLR-P has lower mean capped update-certification time than a monitored width-based baseline, at higher oracle CPU cost.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

Builds on

26 of 32 references.

References · 26

  1. 2018Co-teaching: Robust Training of Deep Neural Networks with Extremely Noisy Labelscited by 1,059
  2. 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
  3. 2014On the Complexity of Best Arm Identification in Multi-Armed Bandit Modelscited by 286
  4. 2013Online Learning under Delayed Feedbackcited by 141
  5. 2015Cascading Bandits: Learning to Rank in the Cascade Modelcited by 77
  6. 2018A Marketplace for Data: An Algorithmic Solutioncited by 76
  7. 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 56
  8. 2018Satisficing in Time-Sensitive Bandit Learningcited by 39
  9. 2021Stochastic Multi-Armed Bandits with Unrestricted Delay Distributionscited by 34
  10. 2017Good Arm Identification via Bandit Feedbackcited by 30
  11. 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 30
  12. 2021Efficient Pure Exploration for Combinatorial Bandits with Semi-Bandit Feedbackcited by 21
14 more
  1. 2017Nearly Optimal Sampling Algorithms for Combinatorial Pure Explorationcited by 19
  2. 2023Optimal Best-Arm Identification in Bandits with Access to Offline Datacited by 8
  3. 2024Improved Bandits in Many-to-one Matching Markets with Incentive Compatibilitycited by 7
  4. 2016Stable Matching with Uncertain Linear Preferencescited by 6
  5. 2017Asynchronous Parallel Empirical Variance Guided Algorithms for the Thresholding Bandit Problemcited by 6
  6. 2022Decentralized Competing Bandits in Non-Stationary Matching Marketscited by 5
  7. 2025Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching for Two-Sided Markets Under Uncertaintycited by 5
  8. 2025Best Arm Identification with Possibly Biased Offline Datacited by 5
  9. 2019Adapting Stable Matchings to Evolving Preferencescited by 4
  10. 2025Competing Bandits in Matching Markets via Super Stabilitycited by 4
  11. 2022Competing Bandits in Time Varying Matching Marketscited by 3
  12. 2025The Batch Complexity of Bandit Pure Explorationcited by 3
  13. 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertaintycited by 2
  14. 2026Robust Stable Matchings: Dealing with Changes in Preferencescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.