MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573412864 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8303

Compressed Least-Squares Regression on Sparse Spaces

2021· article· en· W1573412864 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom projectionCompressed sensingEstimatorComputer scienceCurse of dimensionalityProjection (relational algebra)Range (aeronautics)RegressionVariance (accounting)Dimensionality reductionMathematicsSampling (signal processing)Scale (ratio)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in the area of compressed sensing suggest that it is possible to reconstruct high-dimensional sparse signals from a small number of random projections. Domains in which the sparsity assumption is applicable also offer many interesting large-scale machine learning prediction tasks. It is therefore important to study the effect of random projections as a dimensionality reduction method under such sparsity assumptions. In this paper we develop the bias-variance analysis of a least-squares regression estimator in compressed spaces when random projections are applied on sparse input signals. Leveraging the sparsity assumption, we are able to work with arbitrary non i.i.d. sampling strategies and derive a worst-case bound on the entire space. Empirical results on synthetic and real-world datasets shows how the choice of the projection size affects the performance of regression on compressed spaces, and highlights a range of problems where the method is useful.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.205 · 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