A Cooperative Recurrent Neural Network for Solving <i>L</i><sub>1</sub> Estimation Problems with General Linear Constraints
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
The constrained L(1) estimation is an attractive alternative to both the unconstrained L(1) estimation and the least square estimation. In this letter, we propose a cooperative recurrent neural network (CRNN) for solving L(1) estimation problems with general linear constraints. The proposed CRNN model combines four individual neural network models automatically and is suitable for parallel implementation. As a special case, the proposed CRNN includes two existing neural networks for solving unconstrained and constrained L(1) estimation problems, respectively. Unlike existing neural networks, with penalty parameters, for solving the constrained L(1) estimation problem, the proposed CRNN is guaranteed to converge globally to the exact optimal solution without any additional condition. Compared with conventional numerical algorithms, the proposed CRNN has a low computational complexity and can deal with the L(1) estimation problem with degeneracy. Several applied examples show that the proposed CRNN can obtain more accurate estimates than several existing algorithms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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