MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328963229 · doi:10.11159/ijecs.2012.001

Constrained Nonlinear Least Squares: A Superlinearly Convergent Projected Structured Secant Method

2012· article· en· W2328963229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nezam Mahdavi‐Amiri, Narges Bidabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electrical and Computer Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithmHessian matrixMathematicsNon-linear least squaresNonlinear programmingMathematical optimizationLeast-squares function approximationNonlinear systemLine searchQuasi-Newton methodSecant methodRobustness (evolution)Applied mathematicsConvergence (economics)AlgorithmNewton's methodComputer scienceEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical solution of nonlinear least-squares problems is an important computational task in science and engineering. Effective algorithms have been developed for solving nonlinear least squares problems. The structured secant method is a class of efficient methods developed in recent years for optimization problems in which the Hessian of the objective function has some special structure. A primary and typical application of the structured secant method is to solve the nonlinear least squares problems. We present an exact penalty method for solving constrained nonlinear leastsquares problems, when the structured projected Hessian is approximated by a projected version of the structured BFGS formula and give its local two-step Q-superlinear convergence. For robustness, we employ a special nonsmooth line search strategy, taking account of the least squares objective. We discuss the comparative results of the testing of our programs and three nonlinear programming codes from KNITRO on some randomly generated test problems due to Bartels and MahdaviAmiri. Numerical results also confirm the practical relevance of our special considerations for the inherent structure of the least squares.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electrical and Computer SystemsSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207