MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110344857 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.1090.0323

Feasibility and Constraint Analysis of Sets of Linear Matrix Inequalities

2009· article· en· W2110344857 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard J. Caron, Tim Traynor, Shafiu Jibrin

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsInequalityMathematical optimizationMatrix (chemical analysis)Constraint (computer-aided design)Linear programmingLinear inequalityAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a constraint analysis methodology for linear matrix inequality constraints. If the constraint set is found to be feasible, we search for a minimal representation; otherwise, we search for an irreducible infeasible system. The work is based on the solution of a set-covering problem where each row corresponds to a sample point and is determined by constraint satisfaction at the sampled point. Thus, an implementation requires a method to collect points in the ambient space and a constraint oracle. Much of this paper will be devoted to the development of a hit-and-run sampling methodology. Test results confirm that our approach not only provides information required for constraint analysis but will also, if the feasible region has a nonvoid interior, with probability one, find a feasible point.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207