MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545380151 · doi:10.1002/9781118884003.ch2

Optimization algorithms—an overview

2014· other· en· W1545380151 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHessian matrixConjugate gradient methodNewton's methodFocus (optics)Newton's method in optimizationGradient descentPoint (geometry)Computer scienceQuasi-Newton methodGaussAlgorithmMathematicsFunction (biology)MinificationMathematical optimizationNonlinear conjugate gradient methodNonlinear systemApplied mathematicsIterative methodLocal convergenceArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on the methods that are developed to try to solve the optimization problem before discussing R's particular tools for such tasks. The original focus of the newton's methods is on finding the roots of functions, and the optimization version attempts to provide the step toward the minimum by approximately solving for the point at which the gradient will be zero. Newton's method is attractive because there are theoretical results that show it is extremely efficient under some conditions. The fundamental chore in Newton's method is computing the Hessian H. The author tries to approximate H in ways that are easier to compute with the Gauss–Newton method. It can be argued that the most effective approach is the family of algorithms called quasi-Newton methods. A different approach to gradient-based function minimization is the family of nonlinear conjugate gradient minimizers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.301 · 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