MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008440887 · doi:10.1063/1.4891491

Some relations between symmetries of nonlocally related systems

2014· article· en· W2008440887 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhengzheng Yang, Alexei F. Cheviakov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSymmetry (geometry)Local symmetryHomogeneous spaceMathematicsConservation lawProjection (relational algebra)Partial differential equationRotational symmetryGlobal symmetryMathematical analysisPhysicsSymmetry breakingSpontaneous symmetry breakingQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper is concerned with relations between local symmetries of systems of partial differential equations (PDE) within trees of nonlocally related PDE systems. It is shown that potential systems arising from a given system through linearly independent conservation laws are nonlocally related to each other. Further, a theorem is proven stating that for a PDE system which has precisely n linearly independent local conservation laws, any local symmetry of the PDE system is a projection of some local symmetry of the n-plet potential system. Moreover, a criterion is presented to determine whether or not a specific local symmetry of a given PDE system is a projection of some local symmetry of a specific potential system. Examples are considered. Finally, a formula for a symmetry of a given PDE system in terms of a local symmetry of a nonlocally related subsystem is given. The formula can be used to determine whether a symmetry of the subsystem yields a local or a nonlocal symmetry of the given system, without the need to undertake a full symmetry classification and comparison between the given system and the subsystem.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207