Event constrained programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present event constraints as a new modeling paradigm that generalizes joint chance constraints from stochastic optimization to: (1) enforce a constraint on the probability of satisfying a set of constraints aggregated via application-specific logic (constituting an event), and (2) to be applied to general infinite-dimensional optimization (InfiniteOpt) problems (i.e., time, space, and/or uncertainty domains). This new constraint class offers significant modeling flexibility in posing InfiniteOpt constraints that are enforced over a certain portion of their domain (e.g., to a certain probability level), but can be challenging to reformulate/solve due to difficulties in representing arbitrary logical conditions and specifying a probabilistic measure on a collection of constraints. To address these challenges, we derive a Generalized Disjunctive Programming (GDP) representation of event constrained optimization problems, which readily enables posing logical event conditions in a standard form and allows to draw from a suite of GDP solution strategies that leverage the special structure of this problem class. We also extend several approximation techniques from the chance constraint literature to provide a means to reformulate certain event constraints without the use of binary variables. We illustrate these findings with case studies in stochastic optimal power flow, dynamic disease control, and optimal 2D diffusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".