Efficient Calculation of Polynomial Features on Sparse Matrices
We provide an algorithm for polynomial feature expansion that both operates on and produces a compressed sparse row matrix without any densification. For a vector of dimension D, density d, and degree k the algorithm has time complexity O(d^k * D^k) where k is the polynomial-feature order; this is an improvement by a factor d^k over the standard method.
The paper is beyond my expertise. I cannot give any solid review comments regarding the techniques that are better than an educated guess. However, it seems to me that the topic is not very relevant to the focus of ICLR. Also the quality of writing requires improvement, especially literature review and experiment analysis.
You are a member of the scientific community tasked with peer review. Review the following paper title and abstract.
### Title + Abstract
Efficient Calculation of Polynomial Features on Sparse Matrices
We provide an algorithm for polynomial feature expansion that both operates on and produces a compressed sparse row matrix without any densification. For a vector of dimension D, density d, and degree k the algorithm has time complexity O(d^k * D^k) where k is the polynomial-feature order; this is an improvement by a factor d^k over the standard method.
user
<think>Okay, to do a decent peer review, I should start with summarizing what the work is about. This includes novelty, contributions, clarity, and impact. I might include suggestions to issues that I find critical to the usefulness of the work. Starting with novelty, there are different types of novelty. The first aspect of novelty is scope and scale. Is the work covering a broader perspective than previous works? The second aspect is methodology. Is the proposed methodology novel compared to previous methods? Do they provide any significant advantage over previous methodologies? The third aspect is results. Are the results different compared previous work? Does this lead to any novel theories or an extension of current theories? Next is clarity, I will be reading the work in depth and analyze if any sentences can be potentially ambiguous or misleading. If any sentences are ambiguous, I will state them and give a suggestion on how to rephrase such sentence or how to make more clear to the audience. Lastly, impact is important. I will attempt to predict how such work will impact the scientific community. This might include the applications of such work and how the work might transform the way we study a certain topic. Finally, I will might only mention issues that are critical. This is to keep the review as concise and helpful as possible.</think>



The paper is beyond my expertise. I cannot give any solid review comments regarding the techniques that are better than an educated guess. However, it seems to me that the topic is not very relevant to the focus of ICLR. Also the quality of writing requires improvement, especially literature review and experiment analysis.
assistant
The paper is beyond my expertise. I cannot give any solid review comments regarding the techniques that are better than an educated guess. However, it seems to me that the topic is not very relevant to the focus of ICLR. Also the quality of writing requires improvement, especially literature review and experiment analysis.