MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997140376 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.00983

Frame approximation with bounded coefficients

2020· preprint· en· W2997140376 on OpenAlex
Ben Adcock, Seifi Mohsen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Filter Design and Implementation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounded functionFrame (networking)Hilbert spaceFlexibility (engineering)Linear approximationBasis (linear algebra)Applied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsApproximation errorMathematical optimizationNonlinear systemMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their flexibility, frames of Hilbert spaces are attractive alternatives to bases in approximation schemes for problems where identifying a basis is not straightforward or even feasible. Computing a best approximation using frames, however, can be challenging since it requires solving an ill-conditioned linear system. One consequence of this ill-conditioning is that the coefficients of such a frame approximation can grow large. In this paper we resolve this issue by introducing two methods for frame approximation that possess bounded coefficients. As we show, these methods typically lead to little or no deterioration in the approximation accuracy, but successfully avoid the large coefficients inherent to previous approaches, thus making them attractive in situations where large coefficients are undesirable. We also present theoretical analysis to support these conclusions.

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.

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 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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.092 · 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