MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246502979 · doi:10.1112/blms.12043

A Roth‐type theorem for dense subsets of Rd

2017· article· en· W2246502979 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the London Mathematical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMultilinear mapSingular integral operatorsEuclidean geometrySet (abstract data type)Point (geometry)Euclidean distance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let 1 < p < ∞ , p ≠ 2 . We prove that if d ⩾ d p is sufficiently large, and A ⊆ R d is a measurable set of positive upper density then there exists λ 0 = λ 0 ( A ) such that for all λ ⩾ λ 0 there are x , y ∈ R d such that { x , x + y , x + 2 y } ⊆ A and | | y | | p = λ , where | | y | | p = ( ∑ i | y i | p ) 1 / p is the l p ( R d ) -norm of a point y = ( y 1 , … , y d ) ∈ R d . This means that dense subsets of R d contain 3-term progressions of all sufficiently large gaps when the gap size is measured in the l p -metric. This statement is known to be false in the Euclidean l 2 -metric as well as in the l 1 and ℓ ∞ -metrics. One of the goals of this note is to understand this phenomenon. A distinctive feature of the proof is the use of multilinear singular integral operators, widely studied in classical time-frequency analysis, in the estimation of forms counting configurations.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicMathematical Analysis and Transform MethodsFrench-language works237,207