MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106782999

BBP Phase Transition for an Extensive Number of Outliers

2025· article· W7106782999 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAspen Center for PhysicsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOutlierNoise (video)ScalingSIGNAL (programming language)Degenerate energy levelsQuartic functionSet (abstract data type)Finite setPhase transition
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random-matrix theory helps disentangle signal from noise in large data sets. We analyze rectangular $p \times q$ matrices $W = W_0 + M$ in which the noise $M$ generates a Marchenko-Pastur bulk, whereas the signal $W_0$ injects an extensive set of degenerate singular values. Keeping $\mathrm{rank}$ $W_0/q$ finite as $p,q \to \infty$, we show that the trace of the resolvent of $W^{\top} W$ obeys a quartic equation for one degenerate signal, yielding an exact spectral density, and derive explicit asymptotics in the strong-signal regime. We map out a detailed generalized Baik-Ben Arous-Péché (BBP) phase diagram and clarify how a finite density of spikes reshapes the bulk edges. We further derive a $1/3$-scaling law for the critical signal strength in terms of the rank ratio for rectangular matrices in the finite-to-extensive-rank crossover. Numerical simulations validate the theory and illustrate its relevance for high-dimensional inference tasks with multiple degenerate signals and more general signal distributions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207