A Review and Taxonomy of Interactive Optimization Methods in Operations Research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a review and a classification of interactive optimization methods. These interactive methods are used for solving optimization problems. The interaction with an end user or decision maker aims at improving the efficiency of the optimization procedure, enriching the optimization model, or informing the user regarding the solutions proposed by the optimization system. First, we present the challenges of using optimization methods as a tool for supporting decision making, and we justify the integration of the user in the optimization process. This integration is generally achieved via a dynamic interaction between the user and the system. Next, the different classes of interactive optimization approaches are presented. This detailed review includes trial and error, interactive reoptimization, interactive multiobjective optimization, interactive evolutionary algorithms, human-guided search, and other approaches that are less well covered in the research literature. On the basis of this review, we propose a classification that aims to better describe and compare interaction mechanisms. This classification offers two complementary views on interactive optimization methods. The first perspective focuses on the user’s contribution to the optimization process, and the second concerns the components of interactive optimization systems. Finally, on the basis of this review and classification, we identify some open issues and potential perspectives for interactive optimization methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it