MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126391262 · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/9/09lt01

<i>D</i>-functions and immanants of unitary matrices and submatrices

2016· article· en· W2126391262 on OpenAlexafffund
Hubert de Guise, Dylan Spivak, Justin Kulp, Ish Dhand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesLakehead University
KeywordsBlock matrixDiagonalCombinatoricsUnitary stateMathematicsElement (criminal law)Unitary representationLambdaMatrix (chemical analysis)Unitary matrixRepresentation (politics)Block (permutation group theory)Matrix elementUnitary groupPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPhysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsQuantum mechanicsGeometryLawChemistryLie groupPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by recent results in multiphoton interferometry, we expand a result of Kostant on immanants of an arbitrary m × m unitary matrix T ∈ SU ( m ) to the submatrices of T . Specifically, we show that immanants of principal submatrices of a unitary matrix T are a sum ∑ t D t t ( λ ) ( Ω ) of the diagonal D -functions of group element Ω, with t determined by the choice of submatrix, and the irrep ( λ ) determined by the immanant under consideration. We also provide evidence that this result extends to some submatrices that are not principal diagonal, and we discuss how this result can be extended to cases where T carries an SU( m ) representation that is different from the defining representation.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207