MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604239885 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10873

Adaptive Proximal Average Approximation for Composite Convex Minimization

2017· article· en· W2604239885 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Li Shen, Wei Liu, Junzhou Huang, Yu–Gang Jiang, Shiqian Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationZhejiang UniversityUniversity of WaterlooNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMinificationConvergence (economics)Regular polygonProximal Gradient MethodsMathematical optimizationLasso (programming language)AlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsConvex functionConvex optimizationGraphCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a fast first-order method to solve multi-term nonsmooth composite convex minimization problems by employing a recent proximal average approximation technique and a novel adaptive parameter tuning technique. Thanks to this powerful parameter tuning technique, the proximal gradient step can be performed with a much larger stepsize in the algorithm implementation compared with the prior PA-APG method, which is the core to enable significant improvements in practical performance. Moreover, by choosing the approximation parameter adaptively, the proposed method is shown to enjoy the O(1/k) iteration complexity theoretically without needing any extra computational cost, while the PA-APG method incurs much more iterations for convergence. The preliminary experimental results on overlapping group Lasso and graph-guided fused Lasso problems confirm our theoretic claim well, and indicate that the proposed method is almost five times faster than the state-of-the-art PA-APG method and therefore suitable for higher-precision required optimization.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207