MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113182385 · doi:10.1145/1553374.1553384

Online feature elicitation in interactive optimization

2009· article· en· W2113182385 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegretPreference elicitationComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)HeuristicFocus (optics)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningMinimaxArtificial intelligenceFunction (biology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsPreference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most models of utility elicitation in decision support and interactive optimization assume a predefined set of "catalog" features over which user preferences are expressed. However, users may differ in the features over which they are most comfortable expressing their preferences. In this work we consider the problem of feature elicitation: a user's utility function is expressed using features whose definitions (in terms of "catalog" features) are unknown. We cast this as a problem of concept learning, but whose goal is to identify only enough about the concept to enable a good decision to be recommended. We describe computational procedures for identifying optimal alternatives w.r.t. minimax regret in the presence of concept uncertainty; and describe several heuristic query strategies that focus on reduction of relevant concept 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207