Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicating linear algebra in written form is challenging: mathematicians must choose between writing in languages that produce well-formatted but semantically-underdefined representations such as LaTeX; or languages with well-defined semantics but notation unlike conventional math, such as C++/Eigen. In both cases, the underlying linear algebra is obfuscated by the requirements of esoteric language syntax (as in LaTeX) or awkward APIs due to language semantics (as in C++). The gap between representations results in communication challenges, including underspecified and irrepro-ducible research results, difficulty teaching math concepts underlying complex numerical code, as well as repeated, redundant, and error-prone translations from communicated linear algebra to executable code. We introduce I♥LA, a language with syntax designed to closely mimic conventionally-written linear algebra, while still ensuring an unambiguous, compilable interpretation. Inspired by Markdown, a language for writing naturally-structured plain text files that translate into valid HTML, I♥LA allows users to write linear algebra in text form and compile the same source into LaTeX, C++/Eigen, Python/NumPy/SciPy, and MATLAB, with easy extension to further math programming environments. We outline the principles of our language design and highlight design decisions that balance between readability and precise semantics, and demonstrate through case studies the ability for I♥LA to bridge the semantic gap between conventionally-written linear algebra and unambiguous interpretation in math programming environments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.114 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".