Convexity and Concavity Detection in Computational Graphs: Tree Walks for Convexity Assessment
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
We examine symbolic tools associated with two modeling systems for mathematical programming, which can be used to automatically detect the presence or absence of convexity and concavity in the objective and constraint functions, as well as convexity of the feasible set in some cases. The coconut solver system [Schichl, H. 2004a. COCONUT: COntinuous CONstraints—Updating the technology] focuses on nonlinear global continuous optimization and possesses its own modeling language and data structures. The Dr. Ampl meta-solver [Fourer, R., D. Orban. 2007. Dr. Ampl—A meta solver for optimization. Technical Report G-2007-10, GERAD, Montréal] aims to analyze nonlinear differentiable optimization models and hooks into the ampl Solver Library [Gay, D. M. 2002. Hooking your solver to AMPL]. Our symbolic convexity analysis may be supplemented, when it returns inconclusive results, with a numerical phase that may detect nonconvexity. We report numerical results using these tools on sets of test problems for both global and local optimization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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