MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023329664 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v1n2p184

Formulation of Matrix Pade Approximation in Rectangular Full Packed Storage

2009· article· en· W2023329664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Kaliyappan, Saminathan Ponnusamy, S. Sundar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPadé approximantTriangular matrixMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Square matrixPolynomial matrixInverseBand matrixSingle-entry matrixMatrix polynomialPolynomialCombinatoricsMathematical analysisGeometrySymmetric matrixPure mathematicsPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Extended Euclidean algorithm for matrix Pade approximants is applied to compute matrix Pade approximants in rectangularfull packed format (RFP) if the coefficient matrices of the input matrix polynomial are triangular. The proceduregiven by Gustavson et al for packing a triangular matrix in rectangular full packed format is applied to pack sequenceof lower triangular matrices of a matrix polynomial in Rectangular Full Packed format. This RFP format of a matrixpolynomial is applied to compute matrix Pade approximants of the matrix polynomial using Matrix Pade Extended EuclideanAlgorithm. Algorithms for the multiplication of two triangular matrices and inverse of a triangular matrix in RFPformat are also presented. The CPU time and memory comparison in computing the matrix Pade approximants of a matrixpolynomial between RFP format case and non packed case are elucidated in detail.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicOptimization and Packing ProblemsFrench-language works237,207