Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study numerical stability for interior-point methods applied to Linear Programming, LP, and Semidefinite Programming, SDP. We analyze the difficulties inherent in current methods and present robust algorithms. We start with the error bound analysis of the search directions for the normal equation approach for LP. Our error analysis explains the surprising fact that the ill-conditioning is not a significant problem for the normal equation system. We also explain why most of the popular LP solvers have a default stop tolerance of only 10-8 when the machine precision on a 32-bit computer is approximately 10-16. We then propose a simple alternative approach for the normal equation based interior-point method. This approach has better numerical stability than the normal equation based method. Although, our approach is not competitive in terms of CPU time for the NETLIB problem set, we do obtain higher accuracy. In addition, we obtain significantly smaller CPU times compared to the normal equation based direct solver, when we solve well-conditioned, huge, and sparse problems by using our iterative based linear solver. Additional techniques discussed are: crossover; purification step; and no backtracking. Finally, we present an algorithm to construct SDP problem instances with prescribed strict complementarity gaps. We then introduce two measures of strict complementarity gaps. We empirically show that: (i) these measures can be evaluated accurately; (ii) the size of the strict complementarity gaps correlate well with the number of iteration for the SDPT3 solver, as well as with the local asymptotic convergence rate; and (iii) large strict complementarity gaps, coupled with the failure of Slater's condition, correlate well with loss of accuracy in the solutions. In addition, the numerical tests show that there is no correlation between the strict complementarity gaps and the geometrical measure used in [31], or with Renegar's condition number.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".