MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067086525 · doi:10.1109/synasc.2013.17

Common Factors in Fraction-Free Matrix Reduction

2013· article· en· W2067086525 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraction (chemistry)FactoringGaussian eliminationReduction (mathematics)Integer matrixComputationContext (archaeology)Matrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsGaussianInteger (computer science)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmComputer sciencePure mathematicsSymmetric matrixComputational chemistryNonnegative matrixPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider LU factoring of matrices in the context of exact and symbolic computation, as opposed to floating-point computation. Although initially developed for Gaussian elimination, fraction-free methods have been extended to LU factoring and related forms. We present surprising evidence that the rows and columns of the three matrices in the fraction-free form contain more common factors than one would expect. We describe and analyze experimental evidence for the existence of common factors, both in the case of integer matrices and matrices containing polynomials. The factors discovered grow linearly in the size of the matrix being factored. The common factors allow the entries in the factored form to be decreased in size.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207