Explaining the Results of an Optimization-Based Decision Support System – A Machine Learning Approach
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
In this paper, we present work conducted in order to explain the results of a commercial software used for real-time decision support for the flow management of a combined wastewater network. This tool is deployed in many major cities and is used on a daily basis. We apply decision trees to build rules for classifying and interpreting the solutions of the optimization model. Our main goal is to build a classifier that would help a user understand why a proposed solution is good and why other solutions are worse. We demonstrate the feasibility of the approach to our industrial application by generating a large dataset of feasible solutions and classifying them as satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on whether the objective function is a certain percentage higher than the optimal (minimum) objective. We evaluate the performance of the learned classifier on unseen examples. Our results show that our approach is very promising according to reactions from analysts and potential users.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 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