MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125043282 · doi:10.1109/isit.1997.613323

A constructive approach for reducing the state complexity of self-dual lattices

2002· article· en· W2125043282 on OpenAlexaff
Amir K. Khandani, Morteza Esmaeili

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNonlinear Optical Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambdaLattice (music)Trellis (graph)MathematicsBasis (linear algebra)Representation (politics)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsComputational complexity theoryConstructiveLattice reductionState (computer science)AlgorithmComputer scienceDecoding methodsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a systematic method to successively minimize the state complexity of the self-dual lattices. This is based on representing the lattice on an orthogonal co-ordinate system corresponding to the Gram-Schmidt (GS) vectors of a Korkin-Zolotarev (KZ) reduced basis. We give expressions for the GS vectors of a KZ basis of the E/sub 8//sup (3/), K/sub 12/, BW/sub n/ and /spl Lambda//sub 24/ lattices. Using the proposed method, we have re-derived the trellis diagrams given previously in a systematic and unified approach. It is also shown that for certain complex representation of the /spl Lambda//sub 24/ and the BW/sub n/ lattices, we have: (i) the corresponding GS vectors are along the standard co-ordinate system, and (ii) the branch complexity at each section of the resulting trellis meets a given lower bound. This results in a very efficient trellis representation for these lattices.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.325
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

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNonlinear Optical Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207