MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283805190 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i4.20280

Undercover Boolean Matrix Factorization with MaxSAT

2022· article· en· W4283805190 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum satisfiability problemLogical matrixFactorizationMatrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsImplicantCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsBlock (permutation group theory)Product (mathematics)AlgorithmBoolean functionComputer scienceBoolean expressionGroup (periodic table)PhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The k-undercover Boolean matrix factorization problem aims to approximate a m×n Boolean matrix X as the Boolean product of an m×k and a k×n matrices A◦B such that X is a cover of A◦B, i.e., no representation error is allowed on the 0’s entries of the matrix X. To infer an optimal and “block-optimal” k-undercover, we propose two exact methods based on MaxSAT encodings. From a theoretical standpoint, we prove that our method of inferring “block-optimal” k-undercover is a (1 - 1/e) ≈ 0.632 approximation for the optimal k-undercover problem. From a practical standpoint, experimental results indicate that our “block-optimal” k-undercover algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art even when compared with algorithms for the more general k-undercover Boolean Matrix Factorization problem for which only minimizing reconstruction error is required.

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 score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.234 · 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