MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417225581 · doi:10.26599/tst.2025.9010048

Design and Validation of Optimizer Parameter Critical Conditions via Coupled Transfer Functions and Phase Trajectories

2025· article· en· W4417225581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Biyuan Yao, Guiqing Li, Xiaokang Wang, Qingchen Zhang, Yongwei Nie, Jing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueTsinghua Science & Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHainan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInterpretabilityStochastic gradient descentTrajectoryTransfer functionGeneralizability theoryGradient descentMomentum (technical analysis)Phase (matter)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The design of optimizer parameters affects model performance and is widely applied in fields such as image analysis, autonomous driving, and security monitoring. However, the interpretability and generalizability of optimizers are insufficient, limiting their practical applications. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel approach using transfer function and phase trajectory methods to design the parameters and critical conditions for Stochastic Gradient Descent with Momentum (SGD-M) and Nesterov Accelerated Gradient (NAG). The proposed theory is verified through numerical examples and image recognition experiments. First, using the phase trajectory method, a qualitative analysis of the responses of SGD-M and NAG to initial states is conducted, revealing the influence of parameters on the phase trajectory. Then, through the transfer function method, a quantitative analysis of the unit step response of SGD-M and NAG is performed to explain the impact of parameters on system response. Finally, numerical examples and image recognition experiments verify the significant impact of the momentum control parameter g(μ) and momentum parameter α on optimizer performance, stability, and time-domain characteristics. Experimental results show that adjusting g(μ) or α improves image classification accuracy on the Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) and Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR-10) datasets. It reduces the loss value, validating the effectiveness of the proposed theory.

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)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTsinghua Science & TechnologySame topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207