DECISION MAKING IN DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS AN APPLICATION OF MACHINE LEARNING TO THE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS
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 purpose of this work is to propose a method of algorithmic decision making that builds on the Analytical Hierarchy Process by applying reinforcement learning. Decision making in dynamic environments requires adaptability as new information becomes available. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) provides a method for comparative decision making but is insufficient to handle information that becomes available over time. Using the opinions of one or many subject matter experts and the AHP, the relative importance of evidence can be quantified. However, the ability to explicitly measure the interdependencies is more challenging. The interdependency between the different evidence can be exploited to improve the model accuracy, particularly when information is missing or uncertain. To establish this ability within a decision-making tool, the AHP method can be optimized through a stochastic gradient descent algorithm. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, an experiment was conducted on air target threat classification in time series developing scenarios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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