MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964248269 · doi:10.1145/3054948

SYM-ILDL

2017· article· en· W2964248269 on OpenAlexafffund
Chen Greif, Shiwen He, Paul Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Mathematical Software · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsPreconditionerFactorizationMathematical softwareComputer scienceCode (set theory)Positive-definite matrixSymmetric matrixIncomplete LU factorizationMatching (statistics)SkewMathematicsIterative methodApplied mathematicsParallel computingComputational scienceAlgorithmSoftwareMatrix decompositionSet (abstract data type)PhysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SYM-ILDL is a numerical software package that computes incomplete LDL T (ILDL) factorizations of symmetric indefinite and real skew-symmetric matrices. The core of the algorithm is a Crout variant of incomplete LU (ILU), originally introduced and implemented for symmetric matrices by Li and Saad [2005]. Our code is economical in terms of storage, and it deals with real skew-symmetric matrices as well as symmetric ones. The package is written in C++ and is templated, is open source, and includes a M atlab ™ interface. The code includes built-in RCM and AMD reordering, two equilibration strategies, threshold Bunch-Kaufman pivoting, and rook pivoting, as well as a wrapper to MC64, a popular matching-based equilibration and reordering algorithm. We also include two built-in iterative solvers: SQMR, preconditioned with ILDL, and MINRES, preconditioned with a symmetric positive definite preconditioner based on the ILDL factorization.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.030

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Mathematical SoftwareSame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207