MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989261534 · doi:10.4171/pm/1881

Euclidean distance matrices, semidefinite programming and sensor network localization

2011· article· en· W1989261534 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdo Y. Alfakih, Miguel F. Anjos, Veronica Piccialli, Henry Wolkowicz

Bibliographic record

VenuePortugaliae Mathematica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Windsor
FundersStanford Bio-XMitacsAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingMathematicsEuclidean geometryEmbeddingRegular polygonDimension (graph theory)Context (archaeology)Convex optimizationEuclidean distance matrixCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fundamental problem of distance geometry involves the characterization and study of sets of points based only on given values of some or all of the distances between pairs of points. This problem has a wide range of applications in various areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and engineering. Euclidean distance matrices play an important role in this context by providing elegant and powerful convex relaxations. They play an important role in problems such as graph realization and graph rigidity. Moreover, by relaxing the embedding dimension restriction, these matrices can be used to approximate the hard problems efficiently using semidefinite programming. Throughout this survey we emphasize the interplay between these concepts and problems. In addition, we illustrate this interplay in the context of the sensor network localization problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortugaliae MathematicaSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207