MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118163005

Optimizing Costly Functions with Simple Constraints: A Limited-Memory Projected Quasi-Newton Algorithm

2009· article· en· W2118163005 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Schmidt, E. van den Berg, Michael P. Friedlander, Kevin P. Murphy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmOrthantDescent directionMathematicsConvex functionStochastic gradient descentBroyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithmQuadratic equationComputer scienceGradient descentRegular polygonApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optimization algorithm for minimizing a smooth function over a convex set is de-scribed. Each iteration of the method com-putes a descent direction by minimizing, over the original constraints, a diagonal plus low-rank quadratic approximation to the function. The quadratic approximation is constructed using a limited-memory quasi-Newton update. The method is suitable for large-scale prob-lems where evaluation of the function is sub-stantially more expensive than projection onto the constraint set. Numerical experiments on one-norm regularized test problems indi-cate that the proposed method is competitive with state-of-the-art methods such as bound-constrained L-BFGS and orthant-wise descent. We further show that the method generalizes to a wide class of problems, and substantially improves on state-of-the-art methods for prob-lems such as learning the structure of Gaus-sian graphical models and Markov random fields. 1

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)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations222
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207