MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384574991 · doi:10.23952/jnva.7.2023.4.06

Absolute value equations with data uncertainty in the $l_1$ and $l_\infty$ norm balls

2023· article· en· W4384574991 on OpenAlex
Yue Lu, MA Hong-min, Dong-Yang Xue, Jein-Shan Chen

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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Tianjin CityMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNorm (philosophy)JumpLinear programmingMathematicsApplied mathematicsValue (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationRange (aeronautics)Mathematical economicsStatisticsLawPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absolute value equations (AVEs) have attracted much attention in recent studies.However, the problem data may be contaminated by noises that yield a meaningless solution, even if these coefficients are uncertain within a certain range.To address this issue, we import the idea of robust optimization and present their robust counterpart models with data uncertainty in the l 1 and l ∞ norm balls.In particular, we prove that these models are equivalent to the linear programming problems.Numerical experiments demonstrate that the true solution of these AVEs can be recovered by solving the equivalent linear programming models with open-resource packages JuMP and HiGHS in Julia language.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.277 · 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