MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158898601 · doi:10.1287/moor.1100.0473

On Equivalence of Semidefinite Relaxations for Quadratic Matrix Programming

2011· article· en· W2158898601 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

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingQuadratically constrained quadratic programMathematicsSemidefinite embeddingQuadratic growthQuadratic programmingRelaxation (psychology)Equivalence (formal languages)Positive-definite matrixMathematical optimizationSecond-order cone programmingMatrix (chemical analysis)Quadratic equationRepresentation (politics)Applied mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmConvex optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze two popular semidefinite programming relaxations for quadratically constrained quadratic programs with matrix variables. These relaxations are based on vector lifting and on matrix lifting; they are of different size and expense. We prove, under mild assumptions, that these two relaxations provide equivalent bounds. Thus, our results provide a theoretical guideline for how to choose a less expensive semidefinite programming relaxation and still obtain a strong bound. The main technique used to show the equivalence and that allows for the simplified constraints is the recognition of a class of nonchordal sparse patterns that admit a smaller representation of the positive semidefinite constraint.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.179 · 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