MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406735090 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11341

Lee and Seung (2000)'s Algorithms for Non-negative Matrix Factorization: A Supplementary Proof Guide

2025· preprint· en· W4406735090 on OpenAlex
Sungjae Cho

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsAlgorithmFactorizationComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lee and Seung (2000) introduced numerical solutions for non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) using iterative multiplicative update algorithms. These algorithms have been actively utilized as dimensionality reduction tools for high-dimensional non-negative data and learning algorithms for artificial neural networks. Despite a considerable amount of literature on the applications of the NMF algorithms, detailed explanations about their formulation and derivation are lacking. This report provides supplementary details to help understand the formulation and derivation of the proofs as used in the original paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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