MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384574990 · doi:10.23952/jano.5.2023.2.05

The boosted proximal difference-of-convex algorithm

2023· article· en· W4384574990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConvex functionProximal Gradient MethodsLipschitz continuitySequence (biology)Convex optimizationLimit pointConvexityMonotonic functionFunction (biology)Logarithmically convex functionRate of convergenceRegular polygonAlgorithmApplied mathematicsCombinatoricsSubderivativeMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a boosted proximal difference-of-convex algorithm for solving a minimization problem composed of the sum of a smooth convex function and a continuously differentiable convex function minus a continuous and strongly convex function.By adding an additional line search step, the convergence of proximal difference-of-convex algorithm is accelerated.We prove that any limit point of iterative sequence is a critical point of generalized difference-of-convex programming, and the corresponding objective value decreases monotonically and converges.By assuming that the objective function satisfies the strong Kurdyka-Łojasiewicz inequality, we prove the convergence of whole sequence of the proposed algorithm and give the convergence rate.The strong convexity of the convex part of the minimization problem in [F.J. Aragón Artacho, P.T. Vuong, The boosted difference of convex functions algorithm for nonsmooth functions, SIAM J. Optim.30 (2020), 980-1006] is substituted by the Lipschitz continuity of the gradient of one convex function.Numerical experiments are given to demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm compared with the proximal difference-ofconvex algorithm.

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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied and Numerical OptimizationSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207