MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977507469 · doi:10.1103/physreve.76.047202

Gaussian point processes and two-by-two random matrix theory

2007· article· en· W1977507469 on OpenAlexaff
J. M. Nieminen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsNorthern Digital (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom matrixGaussianMathematicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPoint processMatrix (chemical analysis)Gaussian random fieldRandom functionGaussian processStatistical physicsStatisticsMathematical analysisRandom fieldPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The statistics of the multidimensional Gaussian point process are discussed in connection with the spacing statistics of eigenvalues of 2x2 random matrices. We consider the three-dimensional Gaussian point process when two of the coordinates of a point are randomly chosen from a Gaussian distribution having a mean of zero and a variance of sigma;{2}=1 but the third coordinate is chosen from a Gaussian distribution having a variance in the range of 0< or =sigma_{3};{2}< or =1 . The probability density function associated with a random point being at a distance r from the origin is shown to be closely related to the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution of eigenvalues coming from an ensemble of 2x2 matrices defined by the French-Kota-Pandey-Mehta two-matrix model of random matrix theory. An elementary explanation of this result is given.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207