MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950720448 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.07228

Universal lower bounds for potential energy of spherical codes

2015· preprint· en· W2950720448 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Boyvalenkov, Peter D Dragnev, Douglas P. Hardin, Edward B. Saff, Maya Stoyanova

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardinality (data modeling)Dimension (graph theory)MathematicsMonotone polygonFunction (biology)Code (set theory)Point (geometry)Product (mathematics)Energy (signal processing)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive and investigate lower bounds for the potential energy of finite spherical point sets (spherical codes). Our bounds are optimal in the following sense -- they cannot be improved by employing polynomials of the same or lower degrees in the Delsarte-Yudin method. However, improvements are sometimes possible and we provide a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such better bounds. All our bounds can be obtained in a unified manner that does not depend on the potential function, provided the potential is given by an absolutely monotone function of the inner product between pairs of points, and this is the reason for us to call them universal. We also establish a criterion for a given code of dimension $n$ and cardinality $N$ not to be LP-universally optimal, e.g. we show that two codes conjectured by Ballinger et al to be universally optimal are not LP-universally optimal.

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)0.031
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.117 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMathematical Approximation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207