Complementarity Problems And Positive Definite Matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The class of positive definite and positive semidefinite matrices is one of the most frequently encountered matrix classes both in theory and practice. In statistics, these matrices appear mostly with symmetry. However, in complementarity problems generally symmetry in not necessarily an accompanying feature. Linear complementarity problems defined by positive semidefinite matrices have some interesting properties such as the solution sets are convex and can be processed by Lemke’s algorithm as well as Graves’ principal pivoting algorithm. It is known that the principal pivotal transforms (PPTs) (defined in the context of linear complementarity problem) of positive semidefinite matrices are all positive semidefinite. In this article, we introduce the concept of generalized PPTs and show that the generalized PPTs of a positive semidefinite matrix are also positive semidefinite. One of the important characterizations of P -matrices (that is, the matrices with all principle minors positive) is that the corresponding linear complementarity problems have unique solutions. In this article, we introduce a linear transformation and characterize positive definite matrices as the matrices with corresponding semidefinite linear complementarity problem having unique solutions. Furthermore, we present some simplification procedure in solving a particular type of semidefinite linear complementarity problems involving positive definite matrices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".