Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many tasks require finding groups of elements in a matrix of numbers, symbols or class likelihoods. One approach is to use efficient bi- or tri-linear factorization techniques including PCA, ICA, sparse matrix factorization and plaid analysis. These techniques are not appropriate when addition and multiplication of matrix elements are not sensibly defined. More directly, methods like bi-clustering can be used to classify matrix elements, but these methods make the overly-restrictive assumption that the class of each element is a function of a row class and a column class. We introduce a general computational problem, `matrix tile analysis' (MTA), which consists of decomposing a matrix into a set of non-overlapping tiles, each of which is defined by a subset of usually nonadjacent rows and columns. MTA does not require an algebra for combining tiles, but must search over discrete combinations of tile assignments. Exact MTA is a computationally intractable integer programming problem, but we describe an approximate iterative technique and a computationally efficient sum-product relaxation of the integer program. We compare the effectiveness of these methods to PCA and plaid on hundreds of randomly generated tasks. Using double-gene-knockout data, we show that MTA finds groups of interacting yeast genes that have biologically-related functions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.014 |
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".