MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408053135 · doi:10.1137/24m1632772

Adaptive Partitioning for Chance-Constrained Problems with Finite Support

2025· article· en· W4408053135 on OpenAlexafffund
Marius Roland, Alexandre Forel, Thibaut Vidal

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Optimization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCompute Canada
KeywordsMathematicsMathematical optimizationApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper studies chance-constrained stochastic optimization problems with finite support. It presents an iterative method that solves reduced-size chance-constrained models obtained by partitioning the scenario set. Each reduced problem is constructed to yield a bound on the optimal value of the original problem. We show how to adapt the partitioning of the scenario set so that our adaptive method returns the optimal solution of the original chance-constrained problem in a finite number of iterations. At the heart of the method lie two fundamental operations: refinement and merging. A refinement operation divides a subset of the partition, whereas a merging operation combines a group of subsets into one. We describe how to use these operations to enhance the bound obtained in each step of the method while preserving the small size of the reduced model. Under mild conditions, we prove that, for specific refinement and merge operations, the bound obtained after solving each reduced model strictly improves throughout the iterative process. Our general method allows the seamless integration of various computational enhancements, significantly reducing the computational time required to solve the reduced chance-constrained problems. The method’s efficiency is assessed through numerical experiments on chance-constrained multidimensional knapsack problems. We study the impact of our method’s components and compare its performance against other methods from the recent literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207