MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139369605 · doi:10.1287/opre.1070.0474

Visualizing and Constructing Cycles in the Simplex Method

2008· article· en· W2139369605 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimplexSimplex algorithmSimple (philosophy)Dual (grammatical number)CyclingRevised simplex methodComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmCombinatoricsMathematical optimizationLinear programmingGeographyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most examples of cycling in the simplex method are given without explanation of how they were constructed. An exception is Beale's example built around the geometry of the dual simplex method in the plane [Beale, E. 1955. Cycling in the dual simplex method. Naval Res. Logist. Quart. 2(4) 269–275]. Using this approach, we give a simple geometric explanation for a number of examples of cycling in the simplex method, including Hoffman's original example [Hoffman, A. 1953. Cycling in the Simplex Algorithm. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.]. This gives rise to a simple method for generating examples with cycles.

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)0.003
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.239 · 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