Editorial: Special issue on operations research and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many machine learning techniques work through optimizing specific objective functions.Supervised learning techniques are to minimize the prediction error such as mean square error (MSE) and misclassification rate, or maximize the conditional likelihood, posterior probability, etc. Unsupervised learning techniques usually group instances into clusters in a way that instances within each group are optimally similar while they are distant from instances in other groups.In reinforcement learning, the goal of an agent is to maximize its cumulative reward.However, there is still room to exploit optimization and operations research (OR) in machine learning, and vice versa.Both machine learning and OR can gain advantages through integration and interaction.Optimization and OR techniques play a pivotal role in mitigating machine learning challenges.From feature selection to handling incomplete data and imbalance learning, they can enhance model accuracy and diversity.Their versatile applications encompass addressing bias, selecting optimal training sets, and developing classifiers that minimize misclassification errors across classes, offering comprehensive solutions to multiple machine learning hurdles.Every machine learning technique has several hyperparameters that should be tuned to select the model that achieves the best performance on the learning task at hand.Normally, there are multiple criteria (or objectives) such as bias, variance, complexity, level of explainability, and fairness to be considered in model selection.The existing approach to address multiple criteria in machine learning is to transform the problem into a single-objective optimization problem using, for example, a weighted sum approach.However, this bears the issue of setting the importance of objectives in one way or the other, which is not a straightforward task, nor does the single solution to a multi-objective problem provide insights into the trade-offs between the objectives being optimized.Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decisionmaking as OR techniques can provide an opportunity to meet these criteria in machine learning.On the other hand, machine learning techniques can contribute to finding the optimal solutions and making the best decision efficiently.Machine learning techniques can automate the process of the problem reduction in combinatorial optimization.Unsupervised learning can be used in Pareto pruning methods for multi-(or many-) objective optimization problems.Supervised learning can guide solutions through iterations to achieve convergence faster.Reinforcement learning can learn optimal controllers during the optimization process to improve the performance of optimizers.We are pleased to publish this special issue on 'Operations Research and Machine Learning' consisting of five articles.In 'Real-Time Production Scheduling Using a Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Multi-Agent Approach', Namoura et al. introduce a novel Deep Reinforcement
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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".