MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035271144 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/581

A Unified Model for the Two-stage Offline-then-Online Resource Allocation

2020· preprint· en· W3035271144 on OpenAlexafffund
Yifan Xu, Pan Xu, Jianping Pan, Jun Tao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsResource allocationParameterized complexityThe InternetCrowdsourcingRobustness (evolution)Online algorithmMatching (statistics)Distributed computingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer networkWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the popularity of the Internet, traditional offline resource allocation has evolved into a new form, called online resource allocation. It features the online arrivals of agents in the system and the real-time decision-making requirement upon the arrival of each online agent. Both offline and online resource allocation have wide applications in various real-world matching markets ranging from ridesharing to crowdsourcing. There are some emerging applications such as rebalancing in bike sharing and trip-vehicle dispatching in ridesharing, which involve a two-stage resource allocation process. The process consists of an offline phase and another sequential online phase, and both phases compete for the same set of resources. In this paper, we propose a unified model which incorporates both offline and online resource allocation into a single framework. Our model assumes non-uniform and known arrival distributions for online agents in the second online phase, which can be learned from historical data. We propose a parameterized linear programming (LP)-based algorithm, which is shown to be at most a constant factor of 1/4 from the optimal. Experimental results on the real dataset show that our LP-based approaches outperform the LP-agnostic heuristics in terms of robustness and effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207