MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388008257 · doi:10.1080/01630563.2023.2270308

How Averaged is the Composition of Two Linear Projections?

2023· article· en· W4388008257 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Functional Analysis and Optimization · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsComposition (language)Projection (relational algebra)Linear operatorsModulusUpper and lower boundsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projection operators are fundamental algorithmic operators in Analysis and Optimization. It is well known that these operators are firmly nonexpansive; however, their composition is generally only averaged and no longer firmly nonexpansive. In this note, we introduce the modulus of averagedness and provide an exact result for the composition of two linear projection operators. As a consequence, we deduce that the Ogura–Yamada bound for the modulus of the composition is sharp.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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