MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411142825 · doi:10.1109/tro.2025.3578228

SDPRLayers: Certifiable Backpropagation Through Polynomial Optimization Problems in Robotics

2025· article· en· W4411142825 on OpenAlexaff
Connor Holmes, Frederike Dümbgen, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsBackpropagationArtificial intelligenceRoboticsComputer sciencePolynomialRobotArtificial neural networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent set of techniques in the robotics community, known ascertifiably correct methods, frames robotics problems aspolynomial optimization problems(POPs) and applies convex, semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations to either find or certify their global optima. In parallel,differentiable optimizationallows optimization problems to be embedded into end-to-end learning frameworks and has received considerable attention in the robotics community. In this paper, we consider the ill effect of convergence to spurious local minima in the context of learning frameworks that use differentiable optimization. We present SDPRLayers, an approach that seeks to address this issue by combining convex relaxations with implicit differentiation techniques to providecertifiably correct solutions and gradientsthroughout the training process. We provide theoretical results that outline conditions for the correctness of these gradients and provide efficient means for their computation. Our approach is first applied to two simple-but-demonstrative simulated examples, which expose the potential pitfalls of reliance on local optimization in existing, state-of-the-art, differentiable optimization methods. We then apply our method in a real-world application: we train a deep neural network to detect image keypoints for robot localization in challenging lighting conditions. We provide our open-source, PyTorch implementation of SDPRLayers and our differentiable localization pipeline.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207