An Interior Point Constraint Generation Algorithm for Semi-Infinite Optimization with Health-Care Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an interior point constraint generation (IPCG) algorithm for semi-infinite linear optimization (SILO) and prove that the algorithm converges to an ε-solution of SILO after a finite number of constraints is generated. We derive a complexity bound on the number of Newton steps needed to approach the updated μ-center after adding multiple violated constraints and a complexity bound on the total number of constraints that is required for the overall algorithm to converge. We implement our algorithm to solve the sector duration optimization problem arising in Leksell Gamma Knife® Perfexion™ (Elekta, Stockholm Sweden) treatment planning, a highly specialized treatment for brain tumors. Using real patient data provided by the Department of Radiation Oncology at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, we show that our algorithm can efficiently handle problems in real-life health-care applications by providing a quality treatment plan in a timely manner. Comparing our computational results with MOSEK, a commercial software package, we show that the IPCG algorithm outperforms the classical primal-dual interior point methods on sector duration optimization problem arising in Perfexion™ treatment planning. We also compare our results with that of a projected gradient method. In both cases we show that IPCG algorithm obtains a more accurate solution substantially faster.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".