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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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