Biased tug-of-war, the biased infinity Laplacian, and comparison with exponential cones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prove that if U\subset\R^n is an open domain whose closure \overline{U} is compact in the path metric, and F is a Lipschitz function on \partial{U}, then for each β\in\R there exists a unique viscosity solution to the β-biased infinity Laplacian equation β|\nabla u| + Δ_\infty u=0 on U that extends F, where Δ_\infty u= |\nabla u|^{-2} \sum_{i,j} u_{x_i}u_{x_ix_j} u_{x_j}. In the proof, we extend the tug-of-war ideas of Peres, Schramm, Sheffield and Wilson, and define the β-biased \eps-game as follows. The starting position is x_0 \in U. At the k^\text{th} step the two players toss a suitably biased coin (in our key example, player I wins with odds of \exp(β\eps) to 1), and the winner chooses x_k with d(x_k,x_{k-1}) < \eps. The game ends when x_k \in \partial{U}, and player II pays the amount F(x_k) to player I. We prove that the value u^{\eps}(x_0) of this game exists, and that \|u^\eps - u\|_\infty \to 0 as \eps \to 0, where u is the unique extension of F to \overline{U} that satisfies comparison with β-exponential cones. Comparison with exponential cones is a notion that we introduce here, and generalizing a theorem of Crandall, Evans and Gariepy regarding comparison with linear cones, we show that a continuous function satisfies comparison with β-exponential cones if and only if it is a viscosity solution to the β-biased infinity Laplacian equation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".