MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043567166 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2014.6855084

Generalized quadratically constrained quadratic programming for signal processing

2014· article· en· W2043567166 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Khabbazibasmenj, Sergiy A. Vorobyov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadratic growthQuadratically constrained quadratic programQuadratic programmingKarush–Kuhn–Tucker conditionsSecond-order cone programmingGeneralizationMathematical optimizationMathematicsPolynomialConvex optimizationComputer scienceRegular polygonAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce and solve a particular generalization of the quadratically constrained quadratic programming (QCQP) problem which is frequently encountered in different fields of signal processing and communications. Specifically, we consider such generalization of the QCQP problem that comprises compositions of one-dimensional convex and quadratic functions in the constraint and the objective functions. We show that this class of problems can be precisely or approximately recast as the difference-of-convex functions (DC) programming problem. Although the DC programming problem can be solved through the branch-and-bound methods, these methods do not have any worst-case polynomial-time complexity guarantees. Therefore, we develop a new approach with worst-case polynomial-time complexity that can solve the corresponding DC problem of a generalized QCQP problem. It is analytically guaranteed that the point obtained by this method satisfies the Karsuh-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) optimality conditions. Furthermore, the global optimality can be proved analytically under certain conditions. The new proposed method can be interpreted in terms of the Newton's method as applied to a non-constrained optimization problem.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207