Constructing a subgradient from directional derivatives for functions of two variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For any scalar-valued bivariate function that is locally Lipschitz continuous and directionally differentiable, it is shown that a subgradient may always be constructed from the function's directional derivatives in the four compass directions, arranged in a so-called "compass difference". When the original function is nonconvex, the obtained subgradient is an element of Clarke's generalized gradient, but the result appears to be novel even for convex functions. The function is not required to be represented in any particular form, and no further assumptions are required, though the result is strengthened when the function is additionally L-smooth in the sense of Nesterov. For certain optimal-value functions and certain parametric solutions of differential equation systems, these new results appear to provide the only known way to compute a subgradient. These results also imply that centered finite differences will converge to a subgradient for bivariate nonsmooth functions. As a dual result, we find that any compact convex set in two dimensions contains the midpoint of its interval hull. Examples are included for illustration, and it is demonstrated that these results do not extend directly to functions of more than two variables or sets in higher dimensions. Comment: 16 pages, 2 figures
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".