MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172104953 · doi:10.23952/jano.4.2022.2.03

Avoiding traps in nonconvex problems

2022· article· en· W3172104953 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sean Deyo, Veit Elser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Photolithography Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)HeuristicMetric (unit)HyperparameterFeature (linguistics)Projection (relational algebra)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iterative projection methods may become trapped at non-solutions when the constraint sets are nonconvex. Two kinds of parameters are available to help avoid this behavior and this study gives examples of both. The first kind of parameter, called a hyperparameter, includes any kind of parameter that appears in the definition of the iteration rule itself. The second kind comprises metric parameters in the definition of the constraint sets, a feature that arises when the problem to be solved has two or more kinds of variables. Through examples we show the importance of properly tuning both kinds of parameters and offer heuristic interpretations of the observed behavior.

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 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicAdvancements in Photolithography TechniquesFrench-language works237,207