MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743806489 · doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2958-y

Complex Bounds for Real Maps

2017· article· en· W2743806489 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Trevor Clark, Sebastian van Strien, Sofía Trejo

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Mathematical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 Ideas: European Research CouncilFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WarwickImperial College LondonNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsHolomorphic functionJulia setInterval (graph theory)A priori and a posterioriNeighbourhood (mathematics)Markov chainDomain (mathematical analysis)Pure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we prove complex bounds, also referred to as a priori bounds for C 3, and, in particular, for analytic maps of the interval. Any C 3 mapping of the interval has an asymptotically holomorphic extension to a neighbourhood of the interval. We associate to such a map, a complex box mapping, which provides a kind of Markov structure for the dynamics. Moreover, we prove universal geometric bounds on the shape of the domains and on the moduli between components of the range and domain. Such bounds show that the first return maps to these domains are well controlled, and consequently such bounds form one of the corner stones in many recent results in one-dimensional dynamics, for example: renormalization theory, rigidity, density of hyperbolicity, and local connectivity of Julia sets.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Mathematical PhysicsSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207