MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928203151 · doi:10.1109/focs.2019.00074

Spectral Analysis of Matrix Scaling and Operator Scaling

2019· preprint· en· W2928203151 on OpenAlexafffund
Tsz Chiu Kwok, Lap Chi Lau, Akshay Ramachandran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsScalingSpectral gapOperator (biology)MathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Random matrixCondition numberConvergence (economics)Applied mathematicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a spectral analysis of a continuous scaling algorithm for matrix scaling and operator scaling. The main result is that if the input matrix or operator has a spectral gap, then a natural gradient flow has linear convergence. This implies that a simple gradient descent algorithm also has linear convergence under the same assumption. The spectral gap condition for operator scaling is closely related to the notion of quantum expander studied in quantum information theory. The spectral analysis also provides bounds on some important quantities of the scaling problems, such as the condition number of the scaling solution and the capacity of the matrix and operator. These results can be used in various applications of scaling problems, including matrix scaling on expander graphs, permanent lower bounds on random matrices, the Paulsen problem on random frames, and Brascamp--Lieb constants on random operators. In some applications, the inputs of interest satisfy the spectral condition and we prove significantly stronger bounds than the worst case bounds.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207