Cardinality Minimization, Constraints, and Regularization: A Survey
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 survey optimization problems that involve the cardinality of variable vectors in constraints or the objective function. We provide a unified viewpoint on the general problem classes and models, and we give concrete examples from diverse application fields such as signal and image processing, portfolio selection, and machine learning. The paper discusses general-purpose modeling techniques and broadly applicable as well as problem-specific exact and heuristic solution approaches. While our perspective is that of mathematical optimization, a main goal of this work is to reach out to and build bridges between the different communities in which cardinality optimization problems are frequently encountered. In particular, we highlight that modern mixed-integer programming, which is often regarded as impractical due to the commonly unsatisfactory behavior of black-box solvers applied to generic problem formulations, can in fact produce provably high-quality or even optimal solutions for cardinality optimization problems, even in large-scale real-world settings. Achieving such performance typically involves drawing on the merits of problem-specific knowledge that may stem from different fields of application and, e.g., can shed light on structural properties of a model or its solutions, or can lead to the development of efficient heuristics. We also provide some illustrative examples.
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