MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213236049 · doi:10.1287/ijoo.2021.0070

Satisficing Models Under Uncertainty

2022· article· en· W4213236049 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Optimization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSatisficingMathematical optimizationProbabilistic logicMathematicsRepresentation (politics)Optimization problemDecision problemFunction (biology)Probability distributionComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satisficing, as an approach to decision making under uncertainty, aims at achieving solutions that satisfy the problem’s constraints as well as possible. Mathematical optimization problems that are related to this form of decision making include the P-model. In this paper, we propose a general framework of satisficing decision criteria and show a representation termed the S-model, of which the P-model and robust optimization models are special cases. We then focus on the linear optimization case and obtain a tractable probabilistic S-model, termed the T-model, whose objective is a lower bound of the P-model. We show that when probability densities of the uncertainties are log-concave, the T-model can admit a tractable concave objective function. In the case of discrete probability distributions, the T-model is a linear mixed integer optimization problem of moderate dimensions. Our computational experiments on a stochastic maximum coverage problem suggest that the T-model solutions can be highly competitive compared with standard sample average approximation models.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.259 · 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