Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hilbert's two-dimensional space-filling curve is appreciated for its good locality-preserving properties and easy implementation for many applications. However, Hilbert did not describe how to generalize his construction to higher dimensions. In fact, the number of ways in which this may be done ranges from zero to infinite, depending on what properties of the Hilbert curve one considers to be essential. In this work we take the point of view that a Hilbert curve should at least be self-similar and traverse cubes octant by octant. We organize and explore the space of possible three-dimensional Hilbert curves and the potentially useful properties which they may have. We discuss a notation system that allows us to distinguish the curves from one another and enumerate them. This system has been implemented in a software prototype, available from the author's website. Several examples of possible three-dimensional Hilbert curves are presented, including a curve that visits the points on most sides of the unit cube in the order of the two-dimensional Hilbert curve; curves of which not only the eight octants are similar to each other, but also the four quarters; a curve with excellent locality-preserving properties and endpoints that are not vertices of the cube; a curve in which all but two octants are each other's images with respect to reflections in axis-parallel planes; and curves that can be sketched on a grid without using vertical line segments. In addition, we discuss several four-dimensional Hilbert curves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".