MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030755033 · doi:10.1093/imanum/draa089

Error bounds for overdetermined and underdetermined generalized centred simplex gradients

2020· preprint· en· W3030755033 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIMA Journal of Numerical Analysis · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOverdetermined systemUnderdetermined systemSimplexMoore–Penrose pseudoinverseMathematicsApplied mathematicsCombinatoricsSimplex algorithmRank (graph theory)Calculus (dental)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmLinear programmingGeometryInverse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse this work generalizes the gradient approximation technique called the centred simplex gradient to allow sample sets containing any number of points. This approximation technique is called the generalized centred simplex gradient. We develop error bounds and, under a full-rank condition, show that the error bounds have ${\mathcal O}(\varDelta ^2)$, where $\varDelta $ is the radius of the sample set of points used. We establish calculus rules for generalized centred simplex gradients, introduce a calculus-based generalized centred simplex gradient and confirm that error bounds for this new approach are also ${\mathcal O}(\varDelta ^2)$. We provide several examples to illustrate the results and some benefits of these new methods.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.241 · 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