MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007787872 · doi:10.4208/jcm.1301-m4106

On an Efficient Implementation of the Face Algorithm for Linear Programming

2013· article· en· W2007787872 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

VenueJournal of Computational Mathematics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersShanghai University of Finance and EconomicsNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsComputer scienceFace (sociological concept)AlgorithmLinear programmingProgramming languageLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the solution of the standard linear programming (LP). A remarkable result in LP claims that all optimal solutions form an optimal face of the underlying polyhedron. In practice, many real-world problems have infinitely many optimal solutions and pursuing the optimal face, not just an optimal vertex, is quite desirable. The face algorithm proposed by Pan [19] targets at the optimal face by iterating from face to face, along an orthogonal projection of the negative objective gradient onto a relevant null space. The algorithm exhibits a favorable numerical performance by comparing the simplex method. In this paper, we further investigate the face algorithm by proposing an improved implementation. In exact arithmetic computation, the new algorithm generates the same sequence as Pan's face algorithm, but uses less computational costs per iteration, and enjoys favorable properties for sparse problems.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.361 · 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