MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247716775 · doi:10.23952/jnva.3.2019.3.03

Expanding the applicability of an iterative regularization method for ill-posed problems

2019· article· en· W4247716775 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

VenueJournal of Nonlinear and Variational Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWell-posed problemRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An iteratively regularized projection method, which converges quadratically, is considered for stable approximate solutions to a nonlinear ill-posed operator equation F(x) = y, where F : D(F) X X is a nonlinear monotone operator defined on the real Hilbert space X. We assume that only a noisy data y with yy are available. Under the assumption that the Frchet derivative F of F is Lipschitz continuous, a choice of the regularization parameter using an adaptive selection of the parameter and a stopping rule for the iteration index using a majorizing sequence are presented. We prove that, under a general source condition on x 0x, the error x h, n,x between the regularized approximation x h, n, , (x h, 0, := P h x 0 , where P h is an orthogonal projection on to a finite dimensional subspace X h of X) and the solution x is of optimal order.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.334 · 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