MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002304143 · doi:10.1007/s11590-020-01609-9

A perturbation view of level-set methods for convex optimization

2020· preprint· en· W3002304143 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

VenueOptimization Letters · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSeikei University
KeywordsParameterized complexityDuality (order theory)MathematicsMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Regular polygonConvex setConvex optimizationConstraint (computer-aided design)LimitingPerturbation (astronomy)Feasible regionComputer scienceCombinatoricsPhysicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Level-set methods for convex optimization are predicated on the idea that certain problems can be parameterized so that their solutions can be recovered as the limiting process of a root-finding procedure. This idea emerges time and again across a range of algorithms for convex problems. Here we demonstrate that strong duality is a necessary condition for the level-set approach to succeed. In the absence of strong duality, the level-set method identifies $$\epsilon $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>ϵ</mml:mi> </mml:math> -infeasible points that do not converge to a feasible point as $$\epsilon $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>ϵ</mml:mi> </mml:math> tends to zero. The level-set approach is also used as a proof technique for establishing sufficient conditions for strong duality that are different from Slater’s constraint qualification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.249 · 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