MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950135190 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1307.8161

Mutually Unbiased Weighing Matrices

2013· preprint· en· W2950135190 on OpenAlexaff
Darcy Best, Hadi Kharaghani, Hugh Ramp

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadamard transformMutually unbiased basesMathematicsUpper and lower boundsBest linear unbiased predictionComputer scienceAlgorithmCombinatoricsStatisticsPure mathematicsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by the many applications of mutually unbiased Hadamard matrices, we study mutually unbiased weighing matrices. These matrices are studied for small orders and weights in both the real and complex setting. Our results make use of and examine the sharpness of a very important existing upper bound for the number of mutually unbiased weighing matrices.

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)0.015
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.144
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207