MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952652977 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.8033

On the Convergence of Alternating Direction Lagrangian Methods for Nonconvex Structured Optimization Problems

2014· preprint· en· W2952652977 on OpenAlexaff
Sindri Magnússon, Pradeep Chathuranga Weeraddana, Michael Rabbat, Carlo Fischione

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented Lagrangian methodConvergence (economics)Mathematical optimizationPenalty methodQuadratic equationOptimization problemScalabilityFunction (biology)Computer scienceMathematicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonconvex and structured optimization problems arise in many engineering applications that demand scalable and distributed solution methods. The study of the convergence properties of these methods is in general difficult due to the nonconvexity of the problem. In this paper, two distributed solution methods that combine the fast convergence properties of augmented Lagrangian-based methods with the separability properties of alternating optimization are investigated. The first method is adapted from the classic quadratic penalty function method and is called the Alternating Direction Penalty Method (ADPM). Unlike the original quadratic penalty function method, in which single-step optimizations are adopted, ADPM uses an alternating optimization, which in turn makes it scalable. The second method is the well-known Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM). It is shown that ADPM for nonconvex problems asymptotically converges to a primal feasible point under mild conditions and an additional condition ensuring that it asymptotically reaches the standard first order necessary conditions for local optimality are introduced. In the case of the ADMM, novel sufficient conditions under which the algorithm asymptotically reaches the standard first order necessary conditions are established. Based on this, complete convergence of ADMM for a class of low dimensional problems are characterized. Finally, the results are illustrated by applying ADPM and ADMM to a nonconvex localization problem in wireless sensor networks.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207