MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102483896 · doi:10.1145/1151446.1151453

Symbolic computation of Fenchel conjugates

2006· article· en· W2102483896 on OpenAlexaff
Heinz H. Bauschke, Martin v. Mohrenschildt

Bibliographic record

VenueACM communications in computer algebra · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubderivativeConic optimizationConvex analysisConvex optimizationProper convex functionMathematical optimizationMathematicsOptimization problemComputationComputer scienceLinear matrix inequalitySymbolic regressionRegular polygonAlgorithmGenetic programmingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convex optimization deals with certain classes of mathematical optimization problems including least-squares and linear programming problems. This area has recently been the focus of considerable study and interest due to the facts that convex optimization problems can be solved efficiently by interior-point methods and that convex optimization problems are actually much more prevalent in practice that previously thought.Key notions in convex optimization are the Fenchel conjugate and the subdifferential of a convex function. In this paper, we build a new bridge between convex optimization and symbolic mathematics by describing the Maple package fenchel, which allows for the symbolic computation of these objects for numerous convex functions defined on the real line. We are able to symbolically reproduce computations for finding Fenchel conjugates and subdifferentials for numerous nontrivial examples found in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM communications in computer algebraSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207