Optimization over Sparse Symmetric Sets via a Nonmonotone Projected Gradient Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of minimizing a Lipschitz differentiable function over a class of sparse symmetric sets that has wide applications in engineering and science. For this problem, it is known that any accumulation point of the classical projected gradient (PG) method with a constant stepsize $1/L$ satisfies the $L$-stationarity optimality condition that was introduced in [3]. In this paper we introduce a new optimality condition that is stronger than the $L$-stationarity optimality condition. We also propose a nonmonotone projected gradient (NPG) method for this problem by incorporating some support-changing and coordintate-swapping strategies into a projected gradient method with variable stepsizes. It is shown that any accumulation point of NPG satisfies the new optimality condition and moreover it is a coordinatewise stationary point. Under some suitable assumptions, we further show that it is a global or a local minimizer of the problem. Numerical experiments are conducted to compare the performance of PG and NPG. The computational results demonstrate that NPG has substantially better solution quality than PG, and moreover, it is at least comparable to, but sometimes can be much faster than PG in terms of speed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".