MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412767593 · doi:10.23952/jano.7.2025.2.02

Solving an uncertain quadratic multiobjective optimization problem using Newton’s descent method via a robust optimization approach

2025· article· en· W4412767593 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied and Numerical Optimization · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescent (aeronautics)Mathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationRobust optimizationQuadratic equationDescent directionOptimization problemNewton's methodQuadratic programmingComputer scienceMathematicsNewton's method in optimizationGradient descentIterative methodEngineeringNonlinear systemArtificial intelligenceLocal convergenceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop a Newton's descent method (NDM) for an uncertain quadratic multiobjective optimization problem (UQMOP).To accomplish this, we utilize a minimum of the objective wise worst case (OWWC) type robust counterpart (RC) of the UQMOP.The resulting RC is a nonsmooth multiobjective optimization problem (MOP).Our approach involves constructing a sub-problem to determine Newton's descent direction (NDD) for the RC.An Armijo-type inexact line search (AILS) technique is employed to identify an appropriate step length.Using NDD and step length, we formulate a Newton's descent algorithm (NDA) for the RC.Under some assumptions, we establish the convergence of NDA for the RC.Under specific assumptions, we demonstrate that the sequence defined by the NDA converges rapidly to the solution, exhibiting both superlinear and quadratic rate of convergence.Finally, we assess the efficacy of NDA by conducting a comparative analysis with the weighted sum method via various numerical problems.We obtain the non-dominated Pareto front for both methods, which support our method.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.299 · 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