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

Undercover Boolean Matrix Factorization with MaxSAT

2022· article· en· W4283805190 on OpenAlexaff
Florent Avellaneda, Roger Villemaire

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.

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)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.055
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

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicDigital Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207