A machine learning approach to deal with ambiguity in the humanitarian decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major challenges for humanitarian organizations in response planning is dealing with the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty in disaster situations. The available information that comes from different sources in postdisaster settings may involve missing elements and inconsistencies, which can hamper effective humanitarian decision‐making. In this paper, we propose a new methodological framework based on graph clustering and stochastic optimization to support humanitarian decision‐makers in analyzing the implications of divergent estimates from multiple data sources on final decisions and efficiently integrating these estimates into decision‐making. To the best of our knowledge, the integration of ambiguous information into decision‐making by combining a cluster machine learning method with stochastic optimization has not been done before. We illustrate the proposed approach on a realistic case study that focuses on locating shelters to serve internally displaced people (IDP) in a conflict setting, specifically, the Syrian civil war. We use the needs assessment data from two different reliable sources to estimate the shelter needs in Idleb, a district of Syria. The analysis of data provided by two assessment sources has indicated a high degree of ambiguity due to inconsistent estimates. We apply the proposed methodology to integrate divergent estimates in making shelter location decisions. The results highlight that our methodology leads to higher satisfaction of demand for shelters than other approaches such as a classical stochastic programming model. Moreover, we show that our solution integrates information coming from both sources more efficiently thereby hedging against the ambiguity more effectively. With the newly proposed methodology, the decision‐maker is able to analyze the degree of ambiguity in the data and the degree of consensus between different data sources to ultimately make better decisions for delivering humanitarian aid.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".