MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166630570 · doi:10.1287/moor.2017.0895

On the Complexity of Robust PCA and <i>ℓ</i><sub>1</sub>-Norm Low-Rank Matrix Approximation

2018· article· en· W2166630570 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Air ForceFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsRobust principal component analysisSparse PCAPrincipal component analysisMatrix (chemical analysis)ComputationBipartite graphBinary numberLogical matrixBasis (linear algebra)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The low-rank matrix approximation problem with respect to the component-wise ℓ 1 -norm (ℓ 1 -LRA), which is closely related to robust principal component analysis (PCA), has become a very popular tool in data mining and machine learning. Robust PCA aims to recover a low-rank matrix that was perturbed with sparse noise, with applications for example in foreground-background video separation. Although ℓ 1 -LRA is strongly believed to be NP-hard, there is, to our knowledge, no formal proof of this fact. In this paper, we prove that ℓ 1 -LRA is NP-hard, already in the rank-one case, using a reduction from MAX CUT. Our derivations draw interesting connections between ℓ 1 -LRA and several other well-known problems, i.e., robust PCA, ℓ 0 -LRA, binary matrix factorization, a particular densest bipartite subgraph problem, the computation of the cut norm of {−1, + 1} matrices, and the discrete basis problem, all of which we prove to be NP-hard.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.211 · 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