MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964048937 · doi:10.1137/18m1174544

An Optimization Parameter for Seriation of Noisy Data

2019· article· kn· W2964048937 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahya Ghandehari, Jeannette Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2019
Typearticle
Languagekn
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Delaware Research Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsSimilarity (geometry)Matrix (chemical analysis)Identity matrixCombinatoricsDiagonalSquare matrixMatrix similarityMatrix normRowRow and column spacesSeriation (archaeology)Symmetric matrixArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMathematical analysisEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A square symmetric matrix is a Robinson similarity matrix if entries in its rows and columns are nondecreasing when moving toward the diagonal. A Robinson similarity matrix can be viewed as the affinity matrix between objects arranged in linear order, where objects closer together have higher affinity. We define a new parameter, $\Gamma_{1}$, which measures how badly a given matrix fails to be Robinson similarity. Namely, a matrix is Robinson similarity precisely when its $\Gamma_{1}$ attains zero, and a matrix with small $\Gamma_{1}$ is close (in the normalized $\ell^1$-norm) to a Robinson similarity matrix. Moreover, both $\Gamma_{1}$ and the Robinson similarity approximation can be computed in polynomial time. Thus, our parameter recognizes Robinson similarity matrices which are perturbed by noise and can therefore be a useful tool in the problem of seriation of noisy data.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Discrete MathematicsSame topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207