A modified simplex partition algorithm to test copositivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A real symmetric matrix A is copositive if $$x^\top Ax\ge 0$$ x ⊤ A x ≥ 0 for all $$x\ge 0$$ x ≥ 0 . As A is copositive if and only if it is copositive on the standard simplex, algorithms to determine copositivity, such as those in Sponsel et al. (J Glob Optim 52:537–551, 2012) and Tanaka and Yoshise (Pac J Optim 11:101–120, 2015), are based upon the creation of increasingly fine simplicial partitions of simplices, testing for copositivity on each. We present a variant that decomposes a simplex $$\bigtriangleup $$ △ , say with n vertices, into a simplex $$\bigtriangleup _1$$ △ 1 and a polyhedron $$\varOmega _1$$ Ω 1 ; and then partitions $$\varOmega _1$$ Ω 1 into a set of at most $$(n-1)$$ ( n - 1 ) simplices. We show that if A is copositive on $$\varOmega _1$$ Ω 1 then A is copositive on $$\bigtriangleup _1$$ △ 1 , allowing us to remove $$\bigtriangleup _1$$ △ 1 from further consideration. Numerical results from examples that arise from the maximum clique problem show a significant reduction in the time needed to establish copositivity of matrices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".