MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794421871 · doi:10.11575/prism/30592

Reliable Krylov-based Algorithms for Matrix Null Space

2004· article· en· W2794421871 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wayne Eberly

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Space (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Krylov-based algorithms have recently been used, in combination with other methods, to solve systems of linear equations and to perform related matrix computations over finite fields. For example, large and sparse systems of linear equations over F 2 are formed during the use of the number field sieve for integer factorization, and elements of the null space of these systems are sampled. Block Lanczos algorithms have been used to perform this computation with considerable success. However, the algorithms that are currently in use do not appear to be reliable in the worst case. This report presents a block Lanczos algorithm that is somewhat simpler than block algorithms that are presently in use and provably reliable for computations over large fields. This can be implemented, using a field extension, in order to produce several uniformly and independently selected elements from the null space at once. The amortized cost to produce each vector closely matches the cost to generate such a vector with the methods currently in use. An algorithm is also given to compute the rank of a matrix A E F m x n over a small finite field F. The expected number of matrix-vector products by A or A t used by this algorithm is in O (r), where r is the rank of A. The expected number of additional field operations used by this algorithm is within a polylog factor of r (n+m), and the expected storage space is within a polylog factor of n + m. This is asymptotically more efficient than existing black box algorithms to compute the rank of a matrix over a small field, assuming that the cost of matrix-vector products dominates the cost of other operations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207