Frank-Wolfe Splitting via Augmented Lagrangian Method
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimizing a function over an intersection of convex sets is an important task in optimization that is often much more challenging than minimizing it over each individual constraint set. While traditional methods such as Frank-Wolfe (FW) or proximal gradient descent assume access to a or quadratic oracle on the intersection, splitting techniques take advantage of the structure of each sets, and only require access to the oracle on the individual constraints. In this work, we develop and analyze the Frank-Wolfe Augmented Lagrangian (FW-AL) algorithm, a method for minimizing a smooth function over convex compact sets related by a linear consistency constraint that only requires access to a minimization oracle over the individual constraints. It is based on the Augmented Lagrangian Method (ALM), also known as Method of Multipliers, but unlike most existing splitting methods, it only requires access to (instead of quadratic) minimization oracles. We use recent advances in the analysis of Frank-Wolfe and the alternating direction method of multipliers algorithms to prove a sublinear convergence rate for FW-AL over general convex compact sets and a convergence rate for polytopes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it