Convexity and Concavity Detection in Computational Graphs: Tree Walks for Convexity Assessment
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".