MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984243829 · doi:10.1287/moor.2021.1211

Second-Order Optimality Conditions for Nonconvex Set-Constrained Optimization Problems

2022· article· en· W2984243829 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

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMathematical optimizationTangent coneSet (abstract data type)Order (exchange)Function (biology)TangentRegular polygonDuality (order theory)Feasible regionOptimization problemComputer scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study second-order optimality conditions for nonconvex set-constrained optimization problems. For a convex set-constrained optimization problem, it is well known that second-order optimality conditions involve the support function of the second-order tangent set. In this paper, we propose two approaches for establishing second-order optimality conditions for the nonconvex case. In the first approach, we extend the concept of the support function so that it is applicable to general nonconvex set-constrained problems, whereas in the second approach, we introduce the notion of the directional regular tangent cone and apply classical results of convex duality theory. Besides the second-order optimality conditions, the novelty of our approach lies in the systematic introduction and use, respectively, of directional versions of well-known concepts from variational analysis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.284 · 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