MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006905759 · doi:10.1137/s1052623401398120

A Sequential Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming Method for Differentiable Convex Minimization

2003· article· en· W2006905759 on OpenAlexaff
Masao Fukushima, Zhi‐Quan Luo, Paul Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Optimization · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadratic growthMathematicsQuadratically constrained quadratic programQuadratic programmingSecond-order cone programmingMathematical optimizationRate of convergenceQuadratic equationDifferentiable functionConvex optimizationInterior point methodSequential quadratic programmingQuadratic functionFunction (biology)Convergence (economics)Regular polygonAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a sequential quadratically constrained quadratic programming (SQCQP) method for solving smooth convex programs. The SQCQP method solves at each iteration a subproblem that involves convex quadratic inequality constraints as well as a convex quadratic objective function. Such a quadratically constrained quadratic programming problem can be formulated as a second-order cone program, which can be solved efficiently by using interior point methods. We consider the following three fundamental issues on the SQCQP method: the feasibility of subproblems, the global convergence, and the quadratic rate of convergence. In particular, we show that the Maratos effect is avoided without any modification to the search direction, even though we use an ordinary $\ell_1$ exact penalty function as the line search merit function.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207