MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030357678 · doi:10.1088/0266-5611/28/6/065020

Identification of minimum-phase-preserving operators on the half-line

2012· article· en· W2030357678 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInverse Problems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperator (biology)CorollaryContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Linear mapRank (graph theory)InverseInverse problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimum phase functions are fundamental in a range of applications, including control theory, communication theory and signal processing. A basic mathematical challenge that arises in the context of geophysical imaging is to understand the structure of linear operators preserving the class of minimum phase functions. The heart of the matter is an inverse problem: to reconstruct an unknown minimum-phase-preserving operator from its value on a limited set of test functions. This entails, as a preliminary step, ascertaining sets of test functions that determine the operator, as well as the derivation of a corresponding reconstruction scheme. In this paper, we exploit a recent breakthrough in the theory of stable polynomials to solve the stated inverse problem completely. We prove that a minimum-phase-preserving operator on the half-line can be reconstructed from data consisting of its value on precisely two test functions. And we derive an explicit integral representation of the unknown operator in terms of these data. A remarkable corollary of the solution is that if a linear minimum-phase-preserving operator has rank at least 2, then it is necessarily injective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInverse ProblemsSame topicNumerical methods in inverse problemsFrench-language works237,207