Superiorization vs. accelerated convex optimization: The superiorized / regularized least-squares case
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
We conduct a study and comparison of superiorization and optimization approaches for the reconstruction problem of superiorized / regularized least-squares solutions of underdetermined linear equations with nonnegativity variable bounds. Regarding superiorization, the state of the art is examined for this problem class, and a novel approach is proposed that employs proximal mappings and is structurally similar to the established forward-backward optimization approach. Regarding convex optimization, accelerated forward-backward splitting with inexact proximal maps is worked out and applied to both the natural splitting least-squares term / regularizer and to the reverse splitting regularizer / least-squares term. Our numerical findings suggest that superiorization can approach the solution of the optimization problem and leads to comparable results at significantly lower costs, after appropriate parameter tuning. On the other hand, applying accelerated forward-backward optimization to the reverse splitting slightly outperforms superiorization, which suggests that convex optimization can approach superiorization too, using a suitable problem splitting.
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) | 0.000 | 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