Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverse optimization refers to the inference of unknown parameters of an optimization problem based on knowledge of its optimal solutions. This paper considers inverse optimization in the setting where measurements of the optimal solutions of a convex optimization problem are corrupted by noise. We first provide a formulation for inverse optimization and prove it to be NP-hard. In contrast to existing methods, we show that the parameter estimates produced by our formulation are statistically consistent. Our approach involves combining a new duality-based reformulation for bilevel programs with a regularization scheme that smooths discontinuities in the formulation. Using epi-convergence theory, we show the regularization parameter can be adjusted to approximate the original inverse optimization problem to arbitrary accuracy, which we use to prove our consistency results. Next, we propose two solution algorithms based on our duality-based formulation. The first is an enumeration algorithm that is applicable to settings where the dimensionality of the parameter space is modest, and the second is a semiparametric approach that combines nonparametric statistics with a modified version of our formulation. These numerical algorithms are shown to maintain the statistical consistency of the underlying formulation. Finally, using both synthetic and real data, we demonstrate that our approach performs competitively when compared with existing heuristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".