MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276338813

Remarks on Solutions to a Nonconvex Quadratic Programming Test Problem

2008· article· en· W2276338813 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

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsQuadratic programmingMathematical optimizationQuadratic equationSelection (genetic algorithm)Test (biology)Sequential quadratic programmingComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent paper of Tuy and Hoai-Phuong published in JOGO (2007) 37:557---569 presents an algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programming with quadratic constraints. Performance of this algorithm is illustrated by solving, among others, a test problem from a paper of Audet, Hansen, Jaumard and Savard published in Mathematical Programming, Ser. A (2000) 87:131---152. This test problem is a reformulation of a problem from a paper of Dembo published in Mathematical Programming (1976) 10:192---213. Tuy and Hoai-Phuong observe that the optimal solution reported by Audet et al. is very far from the optimal one for this reformulation. The discrepancy between the reported optimal solutions is not due to selection of an almost feasible solution far from the optimal one nor to cumulation of termwise approximation errors. It is, in fact, simply due to a typographical error.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.268 · 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