MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204915051

Capacity Expansion in the College Admission Problem.

2021· preprint· en· W3204915051 on OpenAlexaff
Federico Bobbio, Margarida Carvalho, Andrea Lodi, Alfredo Torrico

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsMathematical optimizationCardinality (data modeling)Constraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceQuadratic equationQuality (philosophy)Stability (learning theory)Quadratic growthPreferenceLinear programmingMathematicsAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The college admission problem plays a fundamental role in several real-world allocation mechanisms such as school choice and supply chain stability. The classical framework assumes that the capacity of each college is known and fixed in advance. However, increasing the quota of even a single college would improve the overall cost of the students. In this work, we study the problem of finding the college capacity expansion that achieves the best cost of the students, subject to a cardinality constraint. First, we show that this problem is NP-hard to solve, even under complete and strict preference lists. We provide an integer quadratically constrained programming formulation and study its linear reformulation. We also propose two natural heuristics: A greedy algorithm and an LP-based method. We empirically evaluate the performance of our approaches in a detailed computational study. We observe the practical superiority of the linearized model in comparison with its quadratic counterpart and we outline their computational limits. In terms of solution quality, we note that the allocation of a few extra spots can significantly impact the overall student satisfaction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207