BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Peter Jacko

Peter Jacko contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.OCMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls

Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC. We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the model scale. A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control may be lost. The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be considered

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A Comparison of Discrete and Polyhedral Uncertainty Sets for Robust Network Design

We consider a network design and expansion problem, where we need to make a capacity investment now, such that uncertain future demand can be satisfied as closely as possible. To use a robust optimization approach, we need to construct an uncertainty set that contains all scenarios that we believe to be possible. In this paper we discuss how to construct two common types of uncertainty sets, which are discrete and polyhedral uncertainty, using real-world data. We employ clustering to generate a discrete uncertainty set, and place hyperplanes sequentially to generate a polyhedral uncertainty set. We then compare the performance of the resulting robust solutions for these two types of models on real-world data. Our results indicate that polyhedral models, while being popular in the recent network design literature, are less effective than discrete models both in terms of computational burden and solution quality with respect to the performance measure considered.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Efficient Approach to Distributionally Robust Network Capacity Planning

In this paper, we consider a network capacity expansion problem in the context of telecommunication networks, where there is uncertainty associated with the expected traffic demand. We employ a distributionally robust stochastic optimization (DRSO) framework where the ambiguity set of the uncertain demand distribution is constructed using the moments information, the mean and variance. The resulting DRSO problem is formulated as a bilevel optimization problem. We develop an efficient solution algorithm for this problem by characterizing the resulting worst-case two-point distribution, which allows us to reformulate the original problem as a convex optimization problem. In computational experiments the performance of this approach is compared to that of the robust optimization approach with a discrete uncertainty set. The results show that solutions from the DRSO model outperform the robust optimization approach on highly risk-averse performance metrics, whereas the robust solution is better on the less risk-averse metric.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access