MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005586683 · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2020.2972887

Least Squares Approximation via Sparse Subsampled Randomized Hadamard Transform

2020· article· en· W3005586683 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Teng, Xiaowei Zhang, Li Cheng, Delin Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Big Data · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHadamard transformComputer scienceAlgorithmSubspace topologyOverdetermined systemRandomized algorithmEmbeddingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solving least squares (LS) problems is a major topic in many applications. With recent data explosion, traditional approach is no longer suitable while working with large datasets, instead, randomized algorithms become popular in addressing this issue. In this article we propose a new randomized algorithm - sparse subsampled randomized Hadamard transform (SpSRHT) for solving overdetermined least squares problems. Its unique block structure connects two most commonly used randomized algorithms subsampled randomized Hadamard transform (SRHT) and sparse subspace embedding (SpEmb) and creates a general framework which contains them as special cases. We have shown theoretically that SpSRHT with different parameters reaches the relative-error bound with sketch size ranging from the sketch size required by SpEmb to SRHT. The new algorithm closes the gap between SRHT and SpEmb which provides the possibility of balancing accuracy and efficiency demonstrated in them. This advantage of SpSRHT is also well illustrated in our numerical experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Big DataSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207