Computing subgradients of convex relaxations for solutions of parametric ordinary differential equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel subgradient evaluation method is proposed for nonsmooth convex relaxations of parametric solutions of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) arising in global dynamic optimization, assuming that the relaxations always lie strictly within interval bounds during integration. We argue that this assumption is reasonable in practice. These subgradients are computed as the unique solution of an auxiliary parametric affine ODE, analogous to classical forward/tangent sensitivity evaluation methods for smooth dynamic systems. Unlike established subgradient evaluation approaches for nonsmooth dynamic systems, this new method does not require smoothness or transversality assumptions, and is compatible with existing subgradient evaluation methods for closed-form convex functions, as implemented in subgradient evaluation software such as EAGO.jl and MC++. Moreover, we show that a subgradient for a lower-bounding problem in global dynamic optimization can be directly evaluated using reverse/adjoint sensitivity analysis, which may reduce the overall computational effort for an overarching global optimization method. Numerical examples are presented, based on a proof-of-concept implementation in Julia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".