Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
We study the classical apple-tasting setting, a partial feedback model in which the learner observes the true label only when it predicts $1$. A combinatorial characterization for the rates of this problem in the online adversarial setting has been studied by Raman et al. (2024). We study the self-directed setting, in which the learner can adaptively choose the order of the points it predicts on. In the realizable setting, we establish a tetrachotomy on the expected minimax number of mistakes made by any learner. Depending on the VC dimension, the $\emptyset$-centered star number, and the self-directed dimension, we show that the rates could possibly be $Θ(1)$, $O(\log n) \cap ω(1)$, $\tilde Θ(\sqrt{n})$, or $Θ(n)$. In the agnostic setting, the minimax regret is $\tilde Θ(\sqrt{n})$ or $Θ(n)$, depending on the VC dimension.