Limiting behavior of the Alizadeh–Haeberly–Overton weighted paths in semidefinite programming
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the limiting behavior of weighted infeasible central paths for semidefinite programming obtained from centrality equations of the form X S+SX=2 ν W, where W is a fixed positive definite matrix and ν>0 is a parameter, under the assumption that the problem has a strictly complementary primal–dual optimal solution. We present a different and simpler proof than the one given by Preiß and Stoer [Preiß, M. and Stoer, J., 2004, Analysis of infeasible-interior-point paths arising with semidefinite linear complementarity problems. Mathematical Programming 99, 499–520.] that a weighted central path as a function of ν can be extended analytically beyond 0. In addition, the characterization of the limit points of the path and its normalized first-order derivatives is also provided. We also derive an error bound on the distance between a point lying in a certain neighborhood of the central path and the set of primal–dual optimal solutions. Finally, we make some observation for the superlinear convergence of some primal–dual interior point SDP algorithms using AHO neighborhood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it