L‐curve analysis of radiotherapy optimization problems
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 attempt to select an optimal value of regularization parameter in the optimization problems for intensity-modulated radiotherapy which are solved using a variational regularization technique. We apply to inverse treatment planning the L-curve method which was developed to determine the regularization parameter in the discrete ill-posed problems. The L-curve method is based on finding the regularization parameter which minimizes the residual norm which is a measure of accuracy of fit and the solution norm which is a measure of smoothness of solution. The main idea of the L-curve method is to plot the smoothing norm as a function of the residual norm for all values of the regularization parameter. This characteristic curve has an L-shaped dependence and the optimal value of regularization parameter can be found at the "corner" of the L-curve. We plot the L-curves for the optimization problems which simulate prostate radiotherapy cancer treatment with intensity-modulated beams. Different numerical methods are applied to calculate the point of maximum curvature of the L-curves which is a criterion to locate the corner. We show that the point of maximum curvature can be located in a most robust way using a formula derived from the singular value decomposition analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it