MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123610010

The Akiyama-Tanigawa algorithm for Bernoulli numbers

2000· article· en· W2123610010 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

VenueKyushu University Institutional Repository (QIR) (Kyushu University) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Identities
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBernoulli's principleBernoulli numberStirling numbers of the second kindMathematicsAlgorithmBernoulli polynomialsStirling numberBernoulli processDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsComputer sciencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A direct proof is given for Akiyama and Tanigawa's algorithm for computing Bernoulli numbers. The proof uses a closed formula for Bernoulli numbers expressed in terms of Stirling numbers. The outcome of the same algorithm with di#erent initial values is also briefly discussed. 1 The Algorithm In their study of values at non-positive integer arguments of multiple zeta functions, S. Akiyama and Y. Tanigawa [1] found as a special case an amusing algorithm for computing Bernoulli numbers in a manner similar to "Pascal's triangle" for binomial coe#cients. Their algorithm reads as follows: Start with the 0-th row 1, 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5 , . . . and define the first row by 1 (1 - 1 2 ), 2 ( 1 2 - 1 3 ), 3 ( 1 3 - 1 4 ), . . . which produces the sequence 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , . . . . Then define the next row by 1 ( 1 2 - 1 3 ), 2 ( 1 3 - 1 4 ), 3 ( 1 4 - 1 5 ), . . . , thus giving 1 6 , 1 6 , 3 20 , . . . as the second row. In general...

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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