Some notes on applying computational divided differencing in optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of accurate computation of the finite difference $f(\x+\s)-f(\x)$ when $\Vert\s\Vert$ is very small. Direct evaluation of this difference in floating point arithmetic succumbs to cancellation error and yields 0 when $\s$ is sufficiently small. Nonetheless, accurate computation of this finite difference is required by many optimization algorithms for a "sufficient decrease" test. Reps and Rall proposed a programmatic transformation called "computational divided differencing" reminiscent of automatic differentiation to compute these differences with high accuracy. The running time to compute the difference is a small constant multiple of the running time to compute $f$. Unlike automatic differentiation, however, the technique is not fully general because of a difficulty with branching code (i.e., `if' statements). We make several remarks about the application of computational divided differencing to optimization. One point is that the technique can be used effectively as a stagnation test.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it