Dual three-operator splitting algorithms for solving composite monotone inclusion with applications to convex minimization
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
In this paper, we study a monotone inclusion problem involving the mixtures of composite and parallel-sum type monotone operators with one of them being a cocoercive operator. Since the resolvent of the composite operator does not have a closed-form solution, the exact three-operator splitting algorithm could not be directly applied. As a result, it is meaningful to propose an effective iterative algorithm to solve this resolvent operator. Based on the primal-dual idea, we first solve the resolvent of the composite operators under suitable conditions. Furthermore, we present two iterative algorithms to solve the composite monotone inclusion problem, and prove their convergence based on the inexact three-operator splitting algorithm. As an application, a corresponding composite convex optimization problem is solved by two novel approaches. Finally, some numerical experiments are investigated on the image deblurring problems to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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