Bibliographic record
Abstract
In preference-based constrained optimization problems, helping users by providing the most preferable feasible outcome is crucial. The Lexicographic Preference Tree (LP- tree) and the Conditional Preference Network (CP-net) are two fundamental graphical models to represent and reason about user's qualitative preferences. In this paper, we extend the LP- tree with a set of hard feasibility constraints, and then we propose a recursive backtrack search algorithm that we call Search-LP to find the most preferable feasible outcome for the Constrained LP-tree. Search-LP instantiates the variables with respect to a hierarchical order defined by the LP-tree. Given that the LP-tree represents a total order over the outcomes, Search-LP simply returns the first feasible outcome. We prove that this returned outcome is also preferable to every other feasible outcome. The main advantage of Search-LP is that it does not require dominance testing (the task of comparing two outcomes using preferences) to find the optimal solution(s), while dominance testing is a very expensive operation in the case of Constrained CP-nets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".