MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985964050 · doi:10.1190/1.2944169

New insights into one-norm solvers from the Pareto curve

2008· article· en· W1985964050 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPareto principleConvexityPrior probabilityStylized factNorm (philosophy)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBayesian probabilityStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geophysical inverse problems typically involve a trade-off between data misfit and some prior model. Pareto curves trace the optimal trade-off between these two competing aims. These curves are used commonly in problems with two-norm priors in which they are plotted on a log-log scale and are known as L-curves. For other priors, such as the sparsity-promoting one-norm prior, Pareto curves remain relatively unexplored. We show how these curves lead to new insights into one-norm regularization. First, we confirm theoretical properties of smoothness and convexity of these curves from a stylized and a geophysical example. Second, we exploit these crucial properties to approximate the Pareto curve for a large-scale problem. Third, we show how Pareto curves provide an objective criterion to gauge how different one-norm solvers advance toward the solution.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.178 · 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