MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098376290 · doi:10.1155/2012/435945

Canonical Sets of Best<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="bold">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-Approximation

2012· article· en· W2098376290 on OpenAlexaff
Dimiter Dryanov, Petar Petrov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Function Spaces and Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In mathematics, the term approximation usually means either interpolation on a point set or approximation with respect to a given distance. There is a concept, which joins the two approaches together, and this is the concept of characterization of the best approximants via interpolation. It turns out that for some large classes of functions the best approximants with respect to a certain distance can be constructed by interpolation on a point set that does not depend on the choice of the function to be approximated. Such point sets are called canonical sets of best approximation . The present paper summarizes results on canonical sets of best<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-approximation with emphasis on multivariate interpolation and best<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-approximation by blending functions. The best<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-approximants are characterized as transfinite interpolants on canonical sets. The notion of a Haar-Chebyshev system in the multivariate case is discussed also. In this context, it is shown that some multivariate interpolation spaces share properties of univariate Haar-Chebyshev systems. We study also the problem of best one-sided multivariate<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-approximation by sums of univariate functions. Explicit constructions of best one-sided<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>-approximants give rise to well-known and new inequalities.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Function Spaces and ApplicationsSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207