I Label propagation equation: what are the terms?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Master1022
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Propagation Terms
Master1022
Messages
590
Reaction score
116
TL;DR Summary
What terms in the equation (from the linked paper) are vectors or scalars?
Hi,

This is a simple question that I just wanted to clarify. I was reading the following paper on label propagation: HERE and I can't understand whether the terms are vectors or scalars in one of the equations - specifically, equation (2.15) shown in the image below.
Screen Shot 2022-05-03 at 11.02.57 AM.png


My understanding:
- ##f## is a vector
- ## S ## is a matrix
- ## \alpha ## is a scalar
- I am not too sure about ##y##: could be a vector or a scalar.
- ##\nu##: I am not too sure, but I think it could be referring to a specific node? That is, ## f(\nu) ## could be the value of the vector ## f## at node ## \nu ##.
- ## y ##: I am not sure, but I think it is a vector (see reasoning below).

Case is ## y ## is a scalar:
- That would make sense mathematically, but does that mean that we are using the same scalar ## y ## the equation for all nodes. That is, it doesn't matter what node ## \nu ## we are considering, we will always have the same ## y ## scalar in the equation? However, there is another equation above (shown below) which uses y as follows. This suggests that ##y## is a vector because then we have matrix-vector multiplication:

Screen Shot 2022-05-03 at 11.03.14 AM.png

Case if ## y ## is a vector:
- It could be a vector (as suggested by image above), but then we are adding a vector ## (1 - \alpha) y ## to a scalar ## \alpha S f ## is a vector, and we are extracted the value at a certain node ## \nu ##, so it is a scalar. Therefore, it seems unlikely that ## y ## is a vector unless my interpretation of ## \nu ## is incorrect.Apologies if this is sparse with information. I didn't want to rewrite the paper in this post and I am unsure of some of the definitions of variables in there. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##f## and ##y## are functions of ##v##, where ##v## designates a vertex, ##S## an operator, ##\alpha## a positive scalar.

For a given set of vertices ##V##, it is possible to write ##f## and ##y## as a vector over the set of vertices, and ##S## as a matrix.

Note that ##y## can't be a scalar otherwise eq. (2.15) would represent the sum of disparate elements.
 
DrClaude said:
##f## and ##y## are functions of ##v##, where ##v## designates a vertex, ##S## an operator, ##\alpha## a positive scalar.

For a given set of vertices ##V##, it is possible to write ##f## and ##y## as a vector over the set of vertices, and ##S## as a matrix.

Note that ##y## can't be a scalar otherwise eq. (2.15) would represent the sum of disparate elements.
Many thanks for the response!

So would ## f( \nu ) ## be a vector instead of just referring to the entry of vector ## f## corresponding to ## \nu ##?
 
Master1022 said:
So would ## f( \nu ) ## be a vector instead of just referring to the entry of vector ## f## corresponding to ## \nu ##?
I don't understand your question.

##f(v)## is a function, but if you have a discrete set ##V## of vertices ##v##, then ##f(v)## over ##V## can be written as a vector.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top