MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953398301 · doi:10.13001/1081-3810.3839

Non-sparse Companion Matrices

2019· article· en· W2953398301 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis Deaett, Jonathan Fischer, Colin Garnett, Kevin N. Vander Meulen

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Linear Algebra · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsRedeemer UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsCompanion matrixMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Simple (philosophy)Integer matrixRealization (probability)Matrix analysisCombinatoricsPolynomialPolynomial matrixDiscrete mathematicsMatrix polynomialAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsSymmetric matrixNonnegative matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectorsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a polynomial $p(z)$, a companion matrix can be thought of as a simple template for placing the coefficients of $p(z)$ in a matrix such that the characteristic polynomial is $p(z)$. The Frobenius companion and the more recently-discovered Fiedler companion matrices are examples. Both the Frobenius and Fiedler companion matrices have the maximum possible number of zero entries, and in that sense are sparse. In this paper, companion matrices are explored that are not sparse. Some constructions of non-sparse companion matrices are provided, and properties that all companion matrices must exhibit are given. For example, it is shown that every companion matrix realization is non-derogatory. Bounds on the minimum number of zeros that must appear in a companion matrix, are also given.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Journal of Linear AlgebraSame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207