Constrained optimization of objective functions determined from random forests
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 examine a data‐driven optimization approach to making optimal decisions as evaluated by a trained random forest, where these decisions can be constrained by an arbitrary polyhedral set. We model this optimization problem as a mixed‐integer linear program. We show this model can be solved to optimality efficiently using pareto‐optimal Benders cuts for ensembles containing a modest number of trees. We consider a random forest approximation that consists of sampling a subset of trees and establish that this gives rise to near‐optimal solutions by proving analytical guarantees. In particular, for axis‐aligned trees, we show that the number of trees we need to sample is sublinear in the size of the forest being approximated. Motivated by this result, we propose heuristics inspired by cross‐validation that optimize over smaller forests rather than one large forest and assess their performance on synthetic datasets. We present two case studies on a property investment problem and a jury selection problem. We show this approach performs well against other benchmarks while providing insights into the sensitivity of the algorithm's performance for different parameters of the random forest.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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