MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117753887 · doi:10.1080/10556780802414049

An iterative solver-based long-step infeasible primal-dual path-following algorithm for convex QP based on a class of preconditioners

2008· article· en· W2117753887 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaosong Lu, Renato D. C. Monteiro, Jerome W. O’Neal

Bibliographic record

VenueOptimization methods & software · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreconditionerSolverMathematicsPath (computing)Iterative methodInterior point methodRegular polygonLinear programmingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a long-step infeasible primal-dual path-following algorithm for convex quadratic programming (CQP) whose search directions are computed by means of a preconditioned iterative linear solver. In contrast to the authors’ previous paper [Z. Lu, R.D.C. Monteiro, and J.W. O'Neal. An iterative solver-based infeasible primal-dual path-following algorithm for convex quadratic programming, SIAM J. Optim. 17(1) (2006), pp. 287–310], we propose a new linear system, which we refer to as the hybrid augmented normal equation (HANE), to determine the primal-dual search directions. Since the iterative linear solver can only generate an approximate solution to the HANE, this solution does not yield a primal-dual search direction satisfying all equations of the primal-dual Newton system. We propose a recipe to compute an inexact primal-dual search direction, based on a suitable approximate solution to the HANE. The second difference between this paper and [Z. Lu, R.D.C. Monteiro, and J.W. O'Neal. An iterative solver-based infeasible primal-dual path-following algorithm for convex quadratic programming, SIAM J. Optim. 17(1)(2006), pp. 287–310] is that, instead of using the maximum weight basis (MWB) preconditioner in the aforesaid recipe for constructing the inexact search direction, this paper proposes the use of any member of a whole class of preconditioners, of which the MWB preconditioner is just a special case. The proposed recipe allows us to: (i) establish a polynomial bound on the number of iterations performed by our path-following algorithm and (ii) establish a uniform bound, depending on the quality of the preconditioner, on the number of iterations performed by the iterative solver.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptimization methods & softwareSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207