MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The multivariate Krawtchouk polynomials as matrix elements of the rotation group representations on oscillator states

2013· article· en· W2164878054 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent X. Genest, Luc Vinet, Alexei Zhedanov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKravchuk polynomialsMathematicsMultivariate statisticsGroup (periodic table)Pure mathematicsRotation matrixOrthogonal polynomialsOrthogonalityMatrix (chemical analysis)Algebra over a fieldDiscrete orthogonal polynomialsWilson polynomialsPhysicsStatisticsMaterials scienceQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An algebraic interpretation of the bivariate Krawtchouk polynomials is provided in the framework of the three-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator model. These polynomials in two discrete variables are shown to arise as matrix elements of unitary reducible representations of the rotation group in three dimensions. Many of their properties are derived by exploiting the group-theoretic setting. The bivariate Tratnik polynomials of Krawtchouk type are seen to be special cases of the general polynomials that correspond to particular rotations involving only two parameters. It is explained how the approach generalizes naturally to ( d + 1) dimensions and allows us to interpret multivariate Krawtchouk polynomials as matrix elements of SO ( d + 1) unitary representations. Indications are given on the connection with other algebraic models for these polynomials.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations51
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207