MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288938106 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2015.7421292

Hardware based projection onto the parity polytope and probability simplex

2015· preprint· en· W2288938106 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell Wasson, Stark C. Draper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimplexPolytopeParity (physics)Computer scienceSimplex algorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmLinear programmingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the adaptation to hardware of methods for Euclidean norm projections onto the parity polytope and probability simplex. We first refine recent efforts to develop efficient methods of projection onto the parity polytope. Our resulting algorithm can be configured to have either average computational complexity O (d) or worst case complexity O (d log d) on a serial processor where d is the dimension of projection space. We show how to adapt our projection routine to hardware. Our projection method uses a sub-routine that involves another Euclidean projection; onto the probability simplex. We therefore explain how to adapt to hardware a well know simplex projection algorithm. The hardware implementations of both projection algorithms achieve area scalings of O(d (log d)2) at a delay of O ((log d)2). Finally, we present numerical results in which we evaluate the fixed-point accuracy and resource scaling of these algorithms when targeting a modern FPGA.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207