MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891979173 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.16497

Moore-Penrose Dagger Categories

2023· preprint· en· W6891979173 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic and Geometric Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaggerInverseContext (archaeology)Algebra over a fieldSingular value decompositionKernel (algebra)Hilbert space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of a Moore-Penrose inverse (M-P inverse) was introduced by Moore in 1920 and rediscovered by Penrose in 1955. The M-P inverse of a complex matrix is a special type of inverse which is unique, always exists, and can be computed using singular value decomposition. In a series of papers in the 1980s, Puystjens and Robinson studied M-P inverses more abstractly in the context of dagger categories. Despite the fact that dagger categories are now a fundamental notion in categorical quantum mechanics, the notion of a M-P inverse has not (to our knowledge) been revisited since their work. One purpose of this paper is, thus, to renew the study of M-P inverses in dagger categories. Here we introduce the notion of a Moore-Penrose dagger category and provide many examples including complex matrices, finite Hilbert spaces, dagger groupoids, and inverse categories. We also introduce generalized versions of singular value decomposition, compact singular value decomposition, and polar decomposition for maps in a dagger category, and show how, having such a decomposition is equivalent to having M-P inverses. This allows us to provide precise characterizations of which maps have M-P inverses in a dagger idempotent complete category, a dagger kernel category with dagger biproducts (and negatives), and a dagger category with unique square roots.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.035 · 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.

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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAlgebraic and Geometric AnalysisFrench-language works237,207