MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806781657 · doi:10.1214/17-aop1228

On the spectral radius of a random matrix: An upper bound without fourth moment

2018· article· en· W2806781657 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Bordenave, Pietro Caputo, Djalil Chafaï, Konstantin Tikhomirov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Probability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMathematicsTruncation (statistics)Moment (physics)ConjectureZero (linguistics)Spectral radiusIndependent and identically distributed random variablesDimension (graph theory)Upper and lower boundsRandom matrixUnit circleSquare (algebra)Matrix (chemical analysis)CombinatoricsSquare rootVariance (accounting)Mathematical analysisRADIUSCentral momentRandom variableEigenvalues and eigenvectorsStatisticsMoment-generating functionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider a square matrix with independent and identically distributed entries of zero mean and unit variance. It is well known that if the entries have a finite fourth moment, then, in high dimension, with high probability, the spectral radius is close to the square root of the dimension. We conjecture that this holds true under the sole assumption of zero mean and unit variance. In other words, that there are no outliers in the circular law. In this work, we establish the conjecture in the case of symmetrically distributed entries with a finite moment of order larger than two. The proof uses the method of moments combined with a novel truncation technique for cycle weights that might be of independent interest.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of ProbabilitySame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207