A systematic design approach for non-coherent Grassmannian constellations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we develop a geometry-inspired methodology for generating systematic and structured Grassmannian constellations with large cardinalities. In the proposed methodology we begin with a small close-to-optimal “parent” Grassmann constellation. Each point in this constellation is augmented with a number of “children” points, which are generated along a set of geodesics emanating from that point. These geodesics are chosen to ensure close-to-maximal spacing. In particular, the directions of the geodesics and the distance that each “children” point is moved are chosen to maximize the pairwise Frobenius distance between the resulting constellation points. Although finding these directions directly seems difficult, by embedding the Grassmann manifold on a sphere of larger dimension, we were able to develop structures that are not only simple to generate but that also yield constellations that, under certain conditions, satisfy the maximum distance criterion and lie within a decaying gap from a tight upper bound. Numerical results suggest that the performance of the new constellations is comparable to that of the ones generated directly and significantly better than the performance of the ones generated using the exponential map.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".