Predicting Tactical Solutions to Operational Planning Problems Under Imperfect Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a methodological contribution at the intersection of machine learning and operations research. Namely, we propose a methodology to quickly predict expected tactical descriptions of operational solutions (TDOSs). The problem we address occurs in the context of two-stage stochastic programming, where the second stage is demanding computationally. We aim to predict at a high speed the expected TDOS associated with the second-stage problem, conditionally on the first-stage variables. This may be used in support of the solution to the overall two-stage problem by avoiding the online generation of multiple second-stage scenarios and solutions. We formulate the tactical prediction problem as a stochastic optimal prediction program, whose solution we approximate with supervised machine learning. The training data set consists of a large number of deterministic operational problems generated by controlled probabilistic sampling. The labels are computed based on solutions to these problems (solved independently and offline), employing appropriate aggregation and subselection methods to address uncertainty. Results on our motivating application on load planning for rail transportation show that deep learning models produce accurate predictions in very short computing time (milliseconds or less). The predictive accuracy is close to the lower bounds calculated based on sample average approximation of the stochastic prediction programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".