MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252466691 · doi:10.23952/jano.2.2020.3.01

Projection-type methods with alternating inertial steps for solving multivalued variational inequalities beyond monotonicity

2020· article· en· W4252466691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chinedu Izuchukwu, Yekini Shehu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMonotonic functionVariational inequalityType (biology)Inertial frame of referenceProjection (relational algebra)MathematicsProjection methodApplied mathematicsInequalityMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationDykstra's projection algorithmAlgorithmPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In solving variational inequalities, the inertial extrapolation step is a highly powerful tool in algorithmic designs and analyses mainly due to the improved convergence speed that it contributes to the algorithms. However, it has been discovered that the presence of the inertial extrapolation steps in these methods for solving variational inequalities makes them lose some of their attractive properties, for example, the Fejr monotonicity (with respect to the solution set) of the sequence generated by projection-type methods for solving variational inequalities is lost when the iterative steps involve an inertial term, which makes these methods sometimes not converge faster than the corresponding algorithms without an inertial term. To avoid such a situation, we present two new projection-type methods with alternated inertial extrapolation steps for solving multivalued variational inequality problems, which inherit the Fejr monotonicity property of the projection-type method to some extent. Furthermore, we prove the convergence of the sequence generated by our methods under much relaxed assumptions on the inertial extrapolation factor and the multivalued mapping associated with the problem. Moreover, we establish the convergence rate of our methods and provide several numerical experiments of the new methods in comparison with other related methods in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicOptimization and Variational AnalysisFrench-language works237,207