MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405665770 · doi:10.1090/conm/658/13122

Recovering the conductances on grids: A theoretical justification

2016· other· en· W2405665770 on OpenAlexaff
C. Araúz, Ángeles Carmona Mejías, Ascensión Hernández Encinas, Margarida Mitjana Riera

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary mathematics - American Mathematical Society · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRandom lasers and scattering media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdetermined systemMathematicsResolventContext (archaeology)Inverse problemGridBoundary value problemInverseKernel (algebra)Boundary (topology)UniquenessApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we present an overview of the work developed by the authors in the context of inverse problems on finite networks and moreover, we display the steps needed to recover the conductances in a 3–dimensional grid. This study performs an extension of the pioneer studies by E. B. Curtis and J. A. Morrow, and sets the theoretical basis for solving inverse problems on networks. We present just a glance of what we call overdetermined partial boundary value problems, in which any data are not prescribed on a part of the boundary, whereas in another part of the boundary both the values of the function and of its normal derivative are given. The resolvent kernels associated with these problems are described and they are the fundamental tool to perform an algorithm for the recovery of the conductance of a 3 3 –dimensional grid. We strongly believe that the columns of the overdetermined partial Poisson kernel are the discrete counterpart of the so–called CGO solutions (complex geometrical optic solutions) that, in their turn, are the key to solve inverse continuous problems on planar domains.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary mathematics - American Mathematical SocietySame topicRandom lasers and scattering mediaFrench-language works237,207