MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768800647 · doi:10.1002/mana.201700466

Local dimensions of random homogeneous self‐similar measures: strong separation and finite type

2018· article· en· W2768800647 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn E. Hare, Kevin G. Hare, Sascha Troscheit

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematische Nachrichten · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsIterated functionDimension (graph theory)Type (biology)Measure (data warehouse)Multifractal systemIterated function systemClass (philosophy)HomogeneousFinite setFunction (biology)Homogeneous functionInterval (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsLyapunov exponentPure mathematicsCombinatoricsFractalMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the multifractal analysis of self‐similar measures arising from random homogeneous iterated function systems. Under the assumption of the uniform strong separation condition, we see that this analysis parallels that of the deterministic case. The overlapping case is more complicated; we introduce the notion of finite type for random homogeneous iterated function systems and give a formula for the local dimensions of finite type, regular, random homogeneous self‐similar measures in terms of Lyapunov exponents of certain transition matrices. We show that almost all points with respect to this measure are described by a distinguished subset called the essential class, and that the dimension of the support can be computed almost surely from knowledge of this essential class. For a special subcase, that we call commuting, we prove that the set of attainable local dimensions is almost surely a closed interval. Particular examples of such random measures are analyzed in more detail.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematische NachrichtenSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207