MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037284017 · doi:10.1287/moor.1040.0116

An Interior Point Cutting Plane Method for the Convex Feasibility Problem with Second-Order Cone Inequalities

2005· article· en· W2037284017 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad R. Oskoorouchi, Jean‐Louis Goffin

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCutting-plane methodMathematicsInterior point methodBall (mathematics)Regular polygonDual cone and polar coneCone (formal languages)Convex setSecond-order cone programmingCenter (category theory)Plane (geometry)Convex optimizationFeasible regionPoint (geometry)Mathematical optimizationMathematical analysisAlgorithmGeometryInteger programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The convex feasibility problem in general is a problem of finding a point in a convex set that contains a full dimensional ball and is contained in a compact convex set. We assume that the outer set is described by second-order cone inequalities and propose an analytic center cutting plane technique to solve this problem. We discuss primal and dual settings simultaneously. Two complexity results are reported: the complexity of restoration procedure and complexity of the overall algorithm. We prove that an approximate analytic center is updated after adding a second-order cone cut (SOCC) in O(1) Newton step, and that the analytic center cutting plane method (ACCPM) with SOCC is a fully polynomial algorithm.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207