MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563370187 · doi:10.1007/s13675-018-0101-2

Alternative SDP and SOCP approximations for polynomial optimization

2018· article· en· W2563370187 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

VenueEURO Journal on Computational Optimization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingSet (abstract data type)PolynomialExplained sum of squaresLinear programmingOptimization problemSecond-order cone programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In theory, hierarchies of semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations based on sum of squares (SOS) polynomials have been shown to provide arbitrarily close approximations for a general polynomial optimization problem (POP). However, due to the computational challenge of solving SDPs, it becomes difficult to use SDP hierarchies for large-scale problems. To address this, hierarchies of second-order cone programming (SOCP) relaxations resulting from a restriction of the SOS polynomial condition have been recently proposed to approximate POPs. Here, we consider alternative ways to use the SOCP restrictions of the SOS condition. In particular, we show that SOCP hierarchies can be effectively used to strengthen hierarchies of linear programming relaxations for POPs. Specifically, we show that this solution approach is substantially more effective in finding solutions of certain POPs for which the more common hierarchies of SDP relaxations are known to perform poorly. Furthermore, when the feasible set of the POP is compact, these SOCP hierarchies converge to the POP’s optimal value.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.314 · 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