MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131854866

Using matrices to model symbolic relationship

2008· article· en· W2131854866 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
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizationWifeOrder (exchange)NoveltyComputer scienceThe SymbolicModular designMultiplication (music)Matrix (chemical analysis)Algebra over a fieldTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPure mathematicsPsychologySocial psychologyCombinatoricsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a way of learning matrix representations of objects and relationships. The goal of learning is to allow multiplication of matrices to represent symbolic relationships between objects and symbolic relationships between relationships, which is the main novelty of the method. We demonstrate that this leads to ex-cellent generalization in two different domains: modular arithmetic and family relationships. We show that the same system can learn first-order propositions such as (2, 5) ∈ +3 or (Christopher, Penelope) ∈ has wife, and higher-order propositions such as (3,+3) ∈ plus and (+3,−3) ∈ inverse or (has husband, has wife) ∈ higher oppsex. We further demonstrate that the system understands how higher-order propositions are related to first-order ones by showing that it can correctly answer questions about first-order propositions involving the relations +3 or has wife even though it has not been trained on any first-order examples involving these relations. 1

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207