Decision Tree Modeling Using Integrated Multilevel Stochastic Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision trees (DTs) have proven to be valuable tools for decision making. The common approach for using DTs is calculating the expected value (EV) based on single-number estimates, but the single-number EV method has limited the DTs’ real-life applications to a narrow scope of decision problems. This paper introduces the stochastic multilevel decision tree (MLDT) modeling approach, which is useful for analyzing decision problems characterized by uncertainty and complexity. The MLDT’s advantages are shown through a computer simulation program: the Decision Support Simulation System (DSSS). The DSSS allows users to model probabilistic linear graph networks and provides a hierarchical modeling method for modeling decision trees to present uncertainties more accurately. It consists of three modules: tree analysis networks (TANs), the shortest and longest path dynamic programming analysis network, and cost time analysis networks. The paper only discusses the TAN module by presenting the MLDT concept under the TAN of the DSSS computer application. The content of the paper includes the modeling approach, its advantages, and examples that can be used in modeling stochastic trees. The DT-DSSS was verified by conducting several tests and validated by using it extensively for undergraduate courses in civil engineering at the University of Calgary for the last two academic years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".