MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549466950 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7754

Simultaneous Elicitation of Preference Features and Utility

2010· article· en· W1549466950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretPreference elicitationComputer scienceHeuristicSet (abstract data type)PreferenceExpected utility hypothesisFocus (optics)MinimaxFeature (linguistics)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceUtility theoryMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most frameworks for utility elicitation assume a predefined set of features over which user preferences are expressed. We consider utility elicitation in the presence of subjective or user-defined features, whose definitions are not known in advance. We treat the problem of learning a user's feature definition as one of concept learning, but whose goal is to learn only enough about the concept definition to enable a good decision to be made. This is complicated by the fact that user utility is unknown. We describe computational procedures for identifying optimal alternatives w.r.t minimax regret in the presence of both utility and concept uncertainty; and develop several heuristic query strategies that focus simultaneously on reduction of relevant concept and utility uncertainty.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it