MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061220204 · doi:10.1287/moor.1060.0219

Constraint Qualifications and KKT Conditions for Bilevel Programming Problems

2006· article· en· W2061220204 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

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarush–Kuhn–Tucker conditionsConstraint (computer-aided design)MathematicsBilevel optimizationMathematical optimizationConstraint programmingConstraint logic programmingConstraint satisfactionBinary constraintSet (abstract data type)Nonlinear programmingSequence (biology)Optimization problemNonlinear systemComputer scienceStochastic programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider the bilevel programming problem (BLPP), which is a sequence of two optimization problems where the constraint region of the upper-level problem is determined implicitly by the solution set to the lower-level problem. We extend well-known constraint qualifications for nonlinear programming problems such as the Abadie constraint qualification, the Kuhn-Tucker constraint qualification, the Zangwill constraint qualification, the Arrow-Hurwicz-Uzawa constraint qualification, and the weak reverse convex constraint qualification to BLPPs and derive a Karash-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)-type necessary optimality condition under these constraint qualifications without assuming the lower-level problem satisfying the Mangasarian Fromovitz constraint qualification. Relationships among various constraint qualifications are also given.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.279 · 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