Applications of Random Matrix Theory in Machine Learning and Brain Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain mapping analyzes the wavelengths of brain signals and outputs them in a map, which is then analyzed by a radiologist. Introducing Machine Learning (ML) into the brain mapping process reduces the variable of human error in reading such maps and increases efficiency. A key area of interest is determining the correlation between the functional areas of the brain on a voxel (3-dimensional pixel) wise basis. This leads to determining how a brain is functioning and can be used to detect diseases, disabilities, and sicknesses. As such, random noise presents a challenge in consistently determining the actual signals from the scan. This paper discusses how an algorithm created by Random Matrix Theory (RMT) can be used as a tool for ML, as it detects the correlation of the functional areas of the brain. Random matrices are simulated to represent the voxel signal intensity strength for each time interval where a stimulus is presented in an fMRI scan. Using the Marchenko-Pastur law for Wishart Matrices, a result of RMT, it was found that no matter what type of noise was added to the random matrices, the observed eigenvalue distribution of the Wishart Matrices would converge to the theoretical distribution. This means that RMT is robust and has a high test-re-test reliability. These results further indicate that a strong correlation exists between the eigenvalues, and hence the functional regions of the brain. Any eigenvalue that differs significantly from those predicted from RMT may indicate the discovery of a new discrete brain network.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".