MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131096322 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1305.4296

The Method of Alternating Relaxed Projections for two nonconvex sets

2013· preprint· en· W2131096322 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Projection (relational algebra)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsOrder (exchange)Local convergenceProjection methodComputer scienceAlgorithmDykstra's projection algorithmIterative methodGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Method of Alternating Projections (MAP), a classical algorithm for solving feasibility prob- lems, has recently been intensely studied for nonconvex sets. However, intrinsically available are only local convergence results: convergence occurs if the starting point is not too far away from solutions to avoid getting trapped in certain regions. Instead of taking full projection steps, it can be advantageous to underrelax, i.e., to move only part way towards the constraint set, in order to enlarge the regions of convergence. In this paper, we thus systematically study the Method of Alternating Relaxed Projections (MARP) for two (possibly nonconvex) sets. Complementing our recent work on MAP, we es- tablish local linear convergence results for the MARP. Several examples illustrate our analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.166 · 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