MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161090734 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.09197

Uniform Embeddings for Robinson Similarity Matrices

2021· preprint· en· W3161090734 on OpenAlexaff
Jeannette Janssen, Zhiyuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsEmbeddingAdjacency matrixDiagonalMatrix (chemical analysis)Vertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsRowAdjacency listSimilarity (geometry)Distance matrices in phylogenyGraphComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Robinson similarity matrix is a symmetric matrix where the entry values on all rows and columns increase toward the diagonal. Decompose the Robinson matrix into the sum of k {0, 1}-matrices, then these k {0, 1}-matrices are the adjacency matrices of a set of nested unit interval graphs. Previous studies show that unit interval graphs coincide with indifference graphs. An indifference graph has an embedding that maps each vertex to a real number, where two vertices are adjacent if their embedding is within a fixed threshold distance. In this thesis, consider k different threshold distances, we study the problem of finding an embedding that, simultaneously and with respect to each threshold distance, embeds the k indifference graphs corresponding to the k adjacency matrices. This is called a uniform embedding of a Robinson matrix with respect to the k threshold distances. We give a sufficient and necessary condition on Robinson matrices that have a uniform embedding, which is derived from paths in an associated graph. We also give an efficient combinatorial algorithm to find a uniform embedding or give proof that it does not exist, for the case where k = 2.

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)0.018
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207