MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615873886 · doi:10.1145/3096730.3096740

Finding maximum rank moment matrices by facial reduction on primal form and Douglas-Rachford iteration

2017· article· en· W2615873886 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Wang, Greg Reid, Henry Wolkowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueACM communications in computer algebra · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Semidefinite programmingRank (graph theory)MathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Moment (physics)Positive-definite matrixMathematical optimizationDimension (graph theory)AlgorithmComputer scienceCombinatoricsEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent breakthroughs have been made in the use of semi-definite programming and its application to real polynomial solving. For example, the real radical of a zero dimensional ideal, can be determined by such approaches. Some progress has been made on the determination of the real radical in positive dimension by Ma, Wang and Zhi[5, 4]. Such work involves the determination of maximal rank semidefinite matrices. Existing methods are computationally expensive and have poorer accuracy on larger examples. In previous work we showed that regularity in the form of the Slater constraint qualification (strict feasibility) fails for the moment matrix in the SDP feasibility problem[6]. We used facial reduction to obtain a smaller regularized problem for which strict feasibility holds. However we did not have a theoretical guarantee that our methods, based on facial reduction and Douglas-Rachford iteration ensured the satisfaction of the maximum rank condition. Our work is motivated by the problems above. We discuss how to compute the moment matrix and its kernel using facial reduction techniques where the maximum rank property can be guaranteed by solving the dual problem. The facial reduction algorithms on the primal form is presented. We give examples that exhibit for the first time additional facial reductions beyond the first which are effective in practice with much better accuracy than SeDuMi(CVX).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM communications in computer algebraSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207