MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731346518 · doi:10.1017/s0963548318000342

Bounding the Number of Common Zeros of Multivariate Polynomials and Their Consecutive Derivatives

2018· preprint· en· W2731346518 on OpenAlexaff
Olav Geil, Umberto Martínez-Peñas

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorics Probability Computing · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsUpper and lower boundsBounding overwatchCombinatoricsHermite polynomialsUniquenessPolynomialContext (archaeology)GridOrthogonal polynomialsDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We upper-bound the number of common zeros over a finite grid of multivariate polynomials and an arbitrary finite collection of their consecutive Hasse derivatives (in a coordinate-wise sense). To that end, we make use of the tool from Gröbner basis theory known as footprint. Then we establish and prove extensions in this context of a family of well-known results in algebra and combinatorics. These include Alon's combinatorial Nullstellensatz [1], existence and uniqueness of Hermite interpolating polynomials over a grid, estimations of the parameters of evaluation codes with consecutive derivatives [20], and bounds on the number of zeros of a polynomial by DeMillo and Lipton [8], Schwartz [25], Zippel [26, 27] and Alon and Füredi [2]. As an alternative, we also extend the Schwartz-Zippel bound to weighted multiplicities and discuss its connection to our extension of the footprint bound.

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)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombinatorics Probability ComputingSame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207