MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393078796 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2024.3380568

Quadratic Matrix Factorization With Applications to Manifold Learning

2024· article· en· W4393078796 on OpenAlexafffund
Zheng Zhai, Hengchao Chen, Qiang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMNIST databaseManifold (fluid mechanics)Nonlinear dimensionality reductionMatrix decompositionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFactorizationManifold alignmentPattern recognition (psychology)Quadratic equationRegularization (linguistics)Principal component analysisAlgorithmMathematicsDeep learningDimensionality reductionEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matrix factorization is a popular framework for modeling low-rank data matrices. Motivated by manifold learning problems, this paper proposes a quadratic matrix factorization (QMF) framework to learn the curved manifold on which the dataset lies. Unlike local linear methods such as the local principal component analysis, QMF can better exploit the curved structure of the underlying manifold. Algorithmically, we propose an alternating minimization algorithm to optimize QMF and establish its theoretical convergence properties. To avoid possible over-fitting, we then propose a regularized QMF algorithm and discuss how to tune its regularization parameter. Finally, we elaborate how to apply the regularized QMF to manifold learning problems. Experiments on a synthetic manifold learning dataset and three real-world datasets, including the MNIST handwritten dataset, a cryogenic electron microscopy dataset, and the Frey Face dataset, demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method over its competitors.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207