Predicting Tactical Solutions to Operational Planning Problems under Imperfect Information
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
This paper offers a methodological contribution at the intersection of machine learning and operations research. Namely, we propose a methodology to quickly predict expected tactical descriptions of operational solutions (TDOSs). The problem we address occurs in the context of two-stage stochastic programming, where the second stage is demanding computationally. We aim to predict at a high speed the expected TDOS associated with the second-stage problem, conditionally on the first-stage variables. This may be used in support of the solution to the overall two-stage problem by avoiding the online generation of multiple second-stage scenarios and solutions. We formulate the tactical prediction problem as a stochastic optimal prediction program, whose solution we approximate with supervised machine learning. The training data set consists of a large number of deterministic operational problems generated by controlled probabilistic sampling. The labels are computed based on solutions to these problems (solved independently and offline), employing appropriate aggregation and subselection methods to address uncertainty. Results on our motivating application on load planning for rail transportation show that deep learning models produce accurate predictions in very short computing time (milliseconds or less). The predictive accuracy is close to the lower bounds calculated based on sample average approximation of the stochastic prediction programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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