MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905998793

Exact separation of \(k\)-projection polytope constraints

2015· article· fr· W2905998793 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) · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolytopeMathematicsCutting-plane methodProjection (relational algebra)Relaxation (psychology)CombinatoricsCone (formal languages)Integer (computer science)Constraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationPlane (geometry)Optimization problemAlgorithmInteger programmingGeometryComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical step of any cutting plane algorithm is to find valid inequalities, or more generally valid constraints, that improve the current relaxation of the integer-constrained problem. We consider the k-projection polytope constraints that are a family of constraints based on an inner description of the cut polytope of size k and are applied to k × k principal minors of the matrix variable of a semidefinite optimization relaxation. We propose a bilevel second order cone optimization approach to find the maximally violated k-projection polytope constraint according to a specific depth measure, and reformulate the bilevel problem as a single-level mixed binary second order cone optimization problem. We report computational results using the proposed approach within a cutting plane algorithm on instances of max-cut with 500 and 600 nodes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.294 · 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