MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080164794 · doi:10.1090/tran6653

Some Beurling–Fourier algebras on compact groups are operator algebras

2015· article· en· W2080164794 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahya Ghandehari, Hun Hee Lee, Ebrahim Samei, Nico Spronk

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsMathematicsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldOperator (biology)Fourier transformOperator algebraMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G G be a compact connected Lie group. The question of when a weighted Fourier algebra on G G is completely isomorphic to an operator algebra will be investigated in this paper. We will demonstrate that the dimension of the group plays an important role in the question. More precisely, we will get a positive answer to the question when we consider a polynomial type weight coming from a length function on G G with the order of growth strictly bigger than half of the dimension of the group. The case of S U ( n ) SU(n) will be examined, focusing more on the details including negative results. The proof for the positive directions depends on a non-commutative version of the Littlewood multiplier theory, which we will develop in this paper, and the negative directions will be taken care of by restricting to a maximal torus.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207