MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601244479

The Eigenstep Method: An Iterative Method for Unconstrained Quadratic Optimization

2005· article· en· W1601244479 on OpenAlexaff
John P. Battaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Operational Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLine searchMathematical optimizationHessian matrixGradient descentMathematicsBroyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithmGradient methodMethod of steepest descentConvergence (economics)Quadratic programmingConvex optimizationIterative methodDescent (aeronautics)Applied mathematicsRegular polygonComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Th is paper presents a method for the unconstrained minimizat ion of convex quadratic programming problems. The method is a line search method, an iterative nonmonotone gradient method that is a modification of the classical steepest descent method. The two methods are the same in the choice of the negative gradient as the search direction, but differ in the choice of step size. The steepest descent method uses the optimal step size introduced by Cauchy in the n ineteenth century and the proposed method uses the reciprocal of the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix as step sizes. Thus, the proposed method is referred to as the eigenstep method. We introduce and study three more recent developments, also modifications of the steepest descent method that alter the optimal Cauchy choice of steplength with nonmonotone steplength choices. Nu merical examp les with encouraging results are given to illustrate our new algorith m and a co mparison is made to two standard optimizat ion methods as well as to the three more recent developments in line search methods presented in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Operational ResearchSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207