MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385076334 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.07.026

A linear programming approach to difference-of-convex piecewise linear approximation

2023· article· en· W4385076334 on OpenAlexafffund
Kody Kazda, Xiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Operational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPiecewise linear functionPolytopeMathematical optimizationLinear programmingMathematicsBottleneckLinear approximationApproximation algorithmApproximation errorDimension (graph theory)AlgorithmComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsNonlinear systemCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of finding continuous piecewise linear (CPWL) approximations of deterministic functions of any dimension that satisfy any predefined error-tolerance, while keeping the number of polytopes that partition the approximation domain low. Specifically, we focus on overcoming the major computational bottleneck of the CPWL Approximation Algorithm (CPWL-AA) that has been proposed in the recent literature. CPWL-AA uses the difference-of-convex CPWL representation to search CPWL approximations which can partition the approximation domain to have polytopes of any shape. A computational bottleneck of the method is to solve a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) in which the number of binary variables is large for many problems of practical interest. In this paper, we overcome this by introducing a method that obtains a high quality solution of the MILP by iteratively solving a linear program (LP). We further reduce the computational expense by developing a method that treats some constraints in the LP problem as lazy constraints. Through a computational study we demonstrate that the proposed methods substantially reduce the computation time of CPWL-AA, while maintaining high quality CPWL approximations. With this, we demonstrate that we can generate CPWL approximations that satisfy predefined error-tolerances on functions of up to five dimensions within reasonable solution times.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Operational ResearchSame topicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207