Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wiedemann's paper, introducing his algorithm for sparse and structured matrix computations over arbitrary fields, also presented a pair of matrix preconditioners for computations over small fields. The analysis of the second of these is extended here in order to provide more explicit statements of the expected number of nonzero entries in the matrices obtained as well as bounds on the probability that the matrices being considered have maximal rank. It is hoped that this will make Wiedemann's second preconditioner of more practical use. This is part of ongoing work to establish that this matrix preconditioner can be used to bound the number of nontrivial nilpotent blocks in the Jordan normal form of a preconditioned matrix, in such a way that one can also sample uniformly from the null space of the originally given matrix. If successful this will result in a black box algorithm for the type of matrix computation required when using the number field sieve for integer factorization that is provably reliable (unlike some heuristics, presently in use) and --- by a small factor --- asymptotically more efficient than alternative provably reliable techniques that make use of other matrix preconditioners or require computations over field extensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".