MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259046930

Managing qualitative preferences and constraints in a dynamic environment

2013· article· en· W2259046930 on OpenAlexaff
Eisa Alanazi, Malek Mouhoub

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)PreferenceConstraint (computer-aided design)Optimization problemConstraint satisfaction problemPareto principleCurrent (fluid)Work (physics)Dynamic problemArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of finding the set of pareto optimals for constraints and qualitative preferences together is of great interest to many application areas. It can be viewed as a preference constrained optimization problem where the goal is to find one or more feasible solutions that are not dominated by other feasible outcomes. Our work aims to enhance the current literature of the problem by providing solving methods targeting the problem in a dynamic environments. We target the problem with an eye on adopting and benefiting from the current constraint satisfaction techniques.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.324
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Joint Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207