MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386068295 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-21-2023-87

A Symbolic Algorithm for Solving Doubly Bordered k-Tridiagonal Interval Linear Systems

2023· article· en· W4386068295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sivakumar Thirupathi, Nirmala Thamaraiselvan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTridiagonal matrixInterval (graph theory)Tridiagonal matrix algorithmAlgorithmInterval arithmeticComputationMathematicsDivide and conquer algorithmsComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doubly bordered k-tridiagonal interval linear systems play a crucial role in various mathematical and engineering applications where uncertainty is inherent in the system’s parameters. In this paper, we propose a novel symbolic algorithm for solving such systems efficiently. Our approach combines symbolic computation techniques with interval arithmetic to provide rigorous solutions in the form of tight interval enclosures. By exploiting the tridiagonal structure and employing a divide-and-conquer strategy, our algorithm achieves significantly reduced computational complexity compared to existing numerical methods. We also present theoretical analysis and provide numerical experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy of our algorithm. The proposed symbolic algorithm offers a valuable tool for handling doubly bordered k-tridiagonal interval linear systems and opens up possibilities for addressing uncertainty in real-world problems with improved efficiency and reliability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207