MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915762436 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnab279

Analogues of Entropy in Bi-Free Probability Theory: Microstates

2021· preprint· en· W2915762436 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian Charlesworth, Paul Skoufranis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMinistateSubadditivityEntropy (arrow of time)MathematicsEntropy in thermodynamics and information theoryJoint quantum entropyStatistical physicsBoltzmann's entropy formulaConfiguration entropyMaximum entropy probability distributionMaximum entropy thermodynamicsPrinciple of maximum entropyPhysicsCombinatoricsThermodynamicsStatisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we extend the notion of microstate free entropy to the bi-free setting. In particular, using the bi-free analogue of random matrices, microstate bi-free entropy is defined. Properties essential to an entropy theory are developed, such as the behaviour of the entropy when transformations on the left variables or on the right variables are performed. In addition, the microstate bi-free entropy is demonstrated to be additive over bi-free collections provided additional regularity assumptions are included and is computed for all bi-free central limit distributions. Moreover, an orbital version of bi-free entropy is examined, which provides a tighter upper bound for the subadditivity of microstate bi-free entropy and provides an alternate characterization of bi-freeness in certain settings.

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)0.007
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Mathematics Research NoticesSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207