COMPUTATIONALLY EFFICIENT RECURSIONS FOR TOP-ORDER INVARIANT POLYNOMIALS WITH APPLICATIONS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The top-order zonal polynomials C k ( A ), and top-order invariant polynomials C k 1 ,…, k r ( A 1 , …, A r ) in which each of the partitions of k i , i = 1, …, r , has only one part, occur frequently in multivariate distribution theory, and econometrics — see, for example, Phillips (1980, Econometrica 48, 861–878; 1984, Journal of Econometrics 26, 387–398; 1985, International Economic Review 26, 21–36; 1986, Econometrica 54, 881–896), Hillier (1985, Econometric Theory 1, 53–72; 2001, Econometric Theory 17, 1–28), Hillier and Satchell (1986, Econometric Theory 2, 66–74), and Smith (1989, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 31, 244–257; 1993, Australian Journal of Statistics 35, 271–282). However, even with the recursive algorithms of Ruben (1962, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33, 542–570) and Chikuse (1987, Econometric Theory 3, 195–207), numerical evaluation of these invariant polynomials is extremely time consuming. As a result, the value of invariant polynomials has been largely confined to analytic work on distribution theory. In this paper we present new, very much more efficient, algorithms for computing both the top-order zonal and invariant polynomials. These results should make the theoretical results involving these functions much more valuable for direct practical study. We demonstrate the value of our results by providing fast and accurate algorithms for computing the moments of a ratio of quadratic forms in normal random variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it