MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081095766 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.11705

Towards A Personal Shopper's Dilemma: Time vs Cost

2020· preprint· en· W3081095766 on OpenAlexafffund
Samiul Anwar, Francesco Lettich, Mário A. Nascimento

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSkylineOrder (exchange)Profit (economics)Set (abstract data type)HeuristicBaseline (sea)DilemmaMeasure (data warehouse)Operations researchData miningBusinessMicroeconomicsMathematicsEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider a customer who needs to fulfill a shopping list, and also a personal shopper who is willing to buy and resell to customers the goods in their shopping lists. It is in the personal shopper's best interest to find (shopping) routes that (i) minimize the time serving a customer, in order to be able to serve more customers, and (ii) minimize the price paid for the goods, in order to maximize his/her potential profit when reselling them. Those are typically competing criteria leading to what we refer to as the Personal Shopper's Dilemma query, i.e., to determine where to buy each of the required goods while attempting to optimize both criteria at the same time. Given the query's NP-hardness we propose a heuristic approach to determine a subset of the sub-optimal routes under any linear combination of the aforementioned criteria, i.e., the query's approximate linear skyline set. In order to measure the effectiveness of our approach we also introduce two new metrics, optimality and coverage gaps w.r.t. an optimal, but computationally expensive, baseline solution. Our experiments, using realistic city-scale datasets, show that our proposed approach is two orders of magnitude faster than the baseline and yields low values for the optimality and coverage gaps.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207