Smoothing operators and C∗-algebras for infinite dimensional Lie groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A smoothing operator for a unitary representation [Formula: see text] of a (possibly infinite dimensional) Lie group [Formula: see text] is a bounded operator [Formula: see text] whose range is contained in the space [Formula: see text] of smooth vectors of [Formula: see text]. Our first main result characterizes smoothing operators for Fréchet–Lie groups as those for which the orbit map [Formula: see text] is smooth. For unitary representations [Formula: see text] which are semibounded, i.e. there exists an element [Formula: see text] such that all operators [Formula: see text] from the derived representation, for [Formula: see text] in a neighborhood of [Formula: see text], are uniformly bounded from above, we show that [Formula: see text] coincides with the space of smooth vectors for the one-parameter group [Formula: see text]. As the main application of our results on smoothing operators, we present a new approach to host [Formula: see text]-algebras for infinite dimensional Lie groups, i.e. [Formula: see text]-algebras whose representations are in one-to-one correspondence with certain continuous unitary representations of [Formula: see text]. We show that smoothing operators can be used to obtain host algebras and that the class of semibounded representations can be covered completely by host algebras. In particular, the latter class permits direct integral decompositions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".