Frames and numerical approximation II: generalized sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous paper [Adcock & Huybrechs, 2019] we described the numerical approximation of functions using redundant sets and frames. Redundancy in the function representation offers enormous flexibility compared to using a basis, but ill-conditioning often prevents the numerical computation of best approximations. We showed that, in spite of said ill-conditioning, approximations with regularization may still provide accuracy up to order $\sqrtε$, where $ε$ is a small truncation threshold. When using frames, i.e. complete systems that are generally redundant but which provide infinite representations with coefficients of bounded norm, this accuracy can actually be achieved for all functions in a space. Here, we generalize that setting in two ways. We assume information or samples from $f$ from a wide class of linear operators acting on $f$, rather than inner products associated with the best approximation projection. This enables the analysis of fully discrete approximations based, for instance, on function values only. Next, we allow oversampling, leading to least-squares approximations. We show that this leads to much improved accuracy on the order of $ε$ rather than $\sqrtε$. Overall, we demonstrate that numerical function approximation using redundant representations may lead to highly accurate approximations in spite of having to solve ill-conditioned systems of equations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".