Sensitivity analysis in convex quadratic optimization: Simultaneous perturbation of the objective and right-hand-side vectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we study the behavior of Convex Quadratic Optimization problems when variation occurs simultaneously in the right-hand side vector of the constraints and in the coefficient vector of the linear term in the objective function. It is proven that the optimal value function is piecewise-quadratic. The concepts of transition point and invariancy interval are generalized to the case of simultaneous perturbation. Criteria for convexity, concavity or linearity of the optimal value function on invariancy intervals are derived. Furthermore, differentiability of the optimal value function is studied, and linear optimization problems are given to calculate the left and right derivatives. An algorithm, that is capable to compute the transition points and optimal partitions on all invariancy intervals, is outlined. We specialize the method to Linear Optimization problems and provide a practical example of simultaneous perturbation parametric quadratic optimization problem from electrical engineering. Keywords: Programming, quadratic: simultaneous perturbation sensitivity analysis using IPMs. In this paper we are concerned with the sensitivity analysis of perturbed Convex Quadratic Optimization (CQO) problems where the coefficient vector of the linear term of the objective function and the right-hand side (RHS) vector of the constraints are varied simultaneously. This
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".