From Perspective Maps to Epigraphical Projections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The projection onto the epigraph or a level set of a closed proper convex function can be achieved by finding a root of a scalar equation that involves the proximal operator as a function of the proximal parameter. This paper develops the variational analysis of this scalar equation. The approach is based on a study of the variational-analytic properties of general convex optimization problems that are (partial) infimal projections of the sum of the function in question and the perspective map of a convex kernel. When the kernel is the Euclidean norm squared, the solution map corresponds to the proximal map, and thus, the variational properties derived for the general case apply to the proximal case. Properties of the value function and the corresponding solution map—including local Lipschitz continuity, directional differentiability, and semismoothness—are derived. An SC 1 optimization framework for computing epigraphical and level-set projections is, thus, established. Numerical experiments on one-norm projection illustrate the effectiveness of the approach as compared with specialized algorithms. Funding: This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). M.P. Friedlander was supported by NSERC discovery grant [Grant RGPIN-2017-04461]. T. Hoheisel was supported by NSERC discovery grant [Grant RGPIN-2017-04035]. A. Goodwin’s work was partially supported by an NSERC summer research stipend.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".