MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404035066 · doi:10.1109/tac.2024.3491819

Online Interior-Point Methods for Time-Varying Equality-Constrained Optimization

2024· article· en· W4404035066 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Valorisation des Données
KeywordsInterior point methodMathematical optimizationComputer scienceConstrained optimizationControl theory (sociology)Point (geometry)MathematicsControl (management)GeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important challenge in the online convex optimization (OCO) setting is to incorporate generalized inequalities and time-varying constraints. The inclusion of constraints in OCO widens the applicability of such algorithms to dynamic and safety-critical settings such as the online optimal power flow (OPF) problem. In this work, we propose the first projection-free OCO algorithm admitting time-varying linear constraints and convex generalized inequalities: the online interior-point method for time-varying equality constraints (<monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">OIPM-TEC</monospace>). We derive simultaneous sublinear dynamic regret and constraint violation bounds for <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">OIPM-TEC</monospace> under standard assumptions. For applications where a given tolerance around optima is accepted, we employ an alternative OCO performance metric—the epsilon-regret—and a more computationally efficient algorithm, the epsilon-<monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">OIPM-TEC</monospace> that possesses sublinear bounds under this metric. Finally, we showcase the performance of these two algorithms on an online OPF problem and compare them to another OCO algorithm from 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.362 · 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