Sensor Network Localization, Euclidean Distance Matrix Completions, and Graph Realization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study Semidefinite Programming, \SDPc relaxations for Sensor Network Localization, \SNLc with anchors and with noisy distance information. The main point of the paper is to view \SNL as a (nearest) Euclidean Distance Matrix, \EDM, completion problem and to show the advantages for using this latter, well studied model. We first show that the current popular \SDP relaxation is equivalent to known relaxations in the literature for \EDM completions. The existence of anchors in the problem is {\em not} special. The set of anchors simply corresponds to a given fixed clique for the graph of the \EDM problem. We next propose a method of projection when a large clique or a dense subgraph is identified in the underlying graph. This projection reduces the size, and improves the stability, of the relaxation. In addition, viewing the problem as an \EDM completion problem yields better low rank approximations for the low dimensional realizations. And, the projection/reduction procedure can be repeated for other given cliques of sensors or for sets of sensors, where many distances are known. Thus, further size reduction can be obtained. Optimality/duality conditions and a primal-dual interior-exterior path following algorithm are derived for the \SDP relaxations We discuss the relative stability and strength of two formulations and the corresponding algorithms that are used. In particular, we show that the quadratic formulation arising from the \SDP relaxation is better conditioned than the linearized form, that is used in the literature and that arises from applying a Schur complement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".