A hybrid inverse optimization-stochastic programming framework for network protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disaster management is a complex problem demanding sophisticated modeling approaches. We propose utilizing a hybrid method involving inverse optimization to parameterize the cost functions for a road network’s traffic equilibrium problem and employing a modified version of a two-stage stochastic model to make protection decisions using the information gained from inverse optimization. Inverse optimization allows users to take observations of solutions of optimization and/or equilibrium problems and estimate the parameter values of the functions defining them. In the case of multi-stage stochastic programs for disaster relief, using inverse optimization to parameterize the cost functions can prevent users from making incorrect protection decisions. We demonstrate the framework using two types of cost functions for the traffic equilibrium problem and two different networks. We showcase the value of inverse optimization by demonstrating that, in most of the experiments, different decisions are made when the stochastic network protection problem is parameterized by inverse optimization versus when it is parameterized using a uniform cost assumption. We also demonstrate that similar decisions are made when the stochastic network protection problem is parameterized by inverse optimization versus when it is parameterized by the original/“true” cost parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".