Proper Efficiency and Tradeoffs in Multiple Criteria and Stochastic Optimization
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
The mathematical equivalence between linear scalarizations in multiobjective programming and expected-value functions in stochastic optimization suggests to investigate and establish further conceptual analogies between these two areas. In this paper, we focus on the notion of proper efficiency that allows us to provide a first comprehensive analysis of solution and scenario tradeoffs in stochastic optimization. In generalization of two standard characterizations of properly efficient solutions using weighted sums and augmented weighted Tchebycheff norms for finitely many criteria, we show that these results are generally false for infinitely many criteria. In particular, these observations motivate a slightly modified definition to prove that expected-value optimization over continuous random variables still yields bounded tradeoffs almost everywhere in general. Further consequences and practical implications of these results for decision-making under uncertainty and its related theory and methodology of multiple criteria, stochastic and robust optimization are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it