Evaluating the required scenario set size for stochastic programming in forest management planning: incorporating inventory and growth model uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing a plan of action for the future use of forest resources requires a way to predict the development of the forest through time. These predictions require the use of inventory data and growth models that contain a large number of uncertainties. These uncertainties impact the quality of the predictions, and if not accounted for, they can lead to the selection of a suboptimal management plan. To account for and manage the uncertainties and associated risk, we have explored the use of stochastic programming. Stochastic programming can integrate uncertainty into the optimization process by solving the problem for a large number of potential scenarios of the forests future development. The selection of an appropriately sized set of scenarios involves a trade-off between tractability issues and problem representation issues. In this paper, an analysis of the trade-offs is conducted. Two cases are studied, one in which only the uncertainty of the inventory data is included and a second in which both growth model and inventory data uncertainties are included. The impact of increasing the number of scenarios on the problem representation is examined through a simple even-flow problem.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".