A necessary condition for the guarantee of the superiorization method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a method that involves principally convex feasibility-seeking and makes secondary efforts of objective function value reduction. This is the well-known superiorization method (SM), where the iterates of an asymptotically convergent iterative feasibility-seeking algorithm are perturbed by objective function nonascent steps. We investigate the question under what conditions a sequence generated by an SM algorithm asymptotically converges to a feasible point whose objective function value is superior (meaning smaller or equal) to that of a feasible point reached by the corresponding unperturbed one (i.e., the exactly same feasibility-seeking algorithm that the SM algorithm employs.) This question is yet only partially answered in the literature. We present a condition under which an SM algorithm that uses negative gradient descent steps in its perturbations fails to yield such a superior outcome. The significance of the discovery of this "negative condition" is that it necessitates that the inverse of this condition will have to be assumed to hold in any future guarantee result for the SM. The condition is important for practitioners who use the SM because it is avoidable in experimental work with the SM, thus increasing the success rate of the method in real-world applications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".