MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134754278 · doi:10.23952/asvao.3.2021.3.08

On the approximation error for approximating convex bodies using multiobjective optimization

2021· article· en· W3134754278 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Set-Valued Analysis and Optimization · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRegular polygonMathematical optimizationApproximation errorMathematicsMulti-objective optimizationConvex optimizationApplied mathematicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A polyhedral approximation of a convex body can be calculated by solving approximately an associated multiobjective convex program (MOCP). An MOCP can be solved approximately by Benson type algorithms, which compute outer and inner polyhedral approximations of the problem's upper image. Polyhedral approximations of a convex body can be obtained from polyhedral approximations of the upper image of the associated MOCP. We provide error bounds in terms of the Hausdorff distance for the polyhedral approximations of a convex body in dependence of the stopping criterion of the primal and dual Benson type algorithms which are applied to the associated MOCP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
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