MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147061648 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2009-060-7

Tail Bounds for the Stable Marriage of Poisson and Lebesgue

2009· article· en· W2147061648 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsVoronoi diagramLebesgue integrationCenter (category theory)CombinatoricsStable marriage problemDimension (graph theory)Upper and lower boundsPoisson distributionDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let 𝚵 be a discrete set in ℝ d . Call the elements of 𝚵 centers . The well-known Voronoi tessellation partitions ℝ d into polyhedral regions (of varying volumes) by allocating each site of ℝ d to the closest center. Here we study allocations of ℝ d to 𝚵 in which each center attempts to claima region of equal volume α. We focus on the case where 𝚵 arises from a Poisson process of unit intensity. In an earlier paper by the authors it was proved that there is a unique allocation which is stable in the sense of the Gale–Shapley marriage problem. We study the distance X from a typical site to its allocated center in the stable allocation. The model exhibits a phase transition in the appetite α. In the critical case α = 1 we prove a power law upper bound on X in dimension d = 1. (Power law lower bounds were proved earlier for all d ). In the non-critical cases α < 1 and α > 1 we prove exponential upper bounds on X .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.237 · 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