Weaving hadamard matrices with maximum excess and classes with small excess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Weaving is a matrix construction developed in 1990 for the purpose of obtaining new weighing matrices. Hadamard matrices obtained by weaving have the same orders as those obtained using the Kronecker product, but weaving affords greater control over the internal structure of matrices constructed, leading to many new Hadamard equivalence classes among these known orders. It is known that different classes of Hadamard matrices may have different maximum excess. We explain why those classes with smaller excess may be of interest, apply the method of weaving to explore this question, and obtain constructions for new Hadamard matrices with maximum excess in their respective classes. With this method, we are also able to construct Hadamard matrices of near‐maximal excess with ease, in orders too large for other by‐hand constructions to be of much value. We obtain new lower bounds for the maximum excess among Hadamard matrices in some orders by constructing candidates for the largest excess. For example, we construct a Hadamard matrix with excess 1408 in order 128, larger than all previously known values. We obtain classes of Hadamard matrices of order 96 with maximum excess 912 and 920, which demonstrates that the maximum excess for classes of that order may assume at least three different values. Since the excess of a woven Hadamard matrix is determined by the row sums of the matrices used to weave it, we also investigate the properties of row sums of Hadamard matrices and give lists of them in small orders. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Combin Designs 12: 233–255, 2004.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".