MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112679824 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1108.2578

Monotone operators and "bigger conjugate" functions

2011· preprint· en· W2112679824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Variational Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonotone polygonConjectureMathematicsConstruct (python library)Operator (biology)Convolution (computer science)SkewPure mathematicsFunction (biology)State (computer science)Algebra over a fieldMathematical economicsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a question posed by Stephen Simons in his 2008 monograph involving "bigger conjugate" (BC) functions and the partial infimal convolution. As Simons demonstrated in his monograph, these function have been crucial to the understanding and advancement of the state-of-the-art of harder problems in monotone operator theory, especially the sum problem. In this paper, we provide some tools for further analysis of BC--functions which allow us to answer Simons' problem in the negative. We are also able to refute a similar but much harder conjecture which would have generalized a classical result of Brézis, Crandall and Pazy. Our work also reinforces the importance of understanding unbounded skew linear relations to construct monotone operators with unexpected properties.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.106 · 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