MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979654374 · doi:10.1017/etds.2019.69

Support stability of maximizing measures for shifts of finite type

2019· article· en· W2979654374 on OpenAlexaff
Juliano dos Santos Gonschorowski, Anthony Quas, Jason Siefken

Bibliographic record

VenueErgodic Theory and Dynamical Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSubshift of finite typeErgodic theoryInvariant (physics)Type (biology)Finite setCombinatoricsContext (archaeology)Probability measureFunction (biology)Property (philosophy)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper establishes a fundamental difference between $\mathbb{Z}$ subshifts of finite type and $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ subshifts of finite type in the context of ergodic optimization. Specifically, we consider a subshift of finite type $X$ as a subset of a full shift $F$ . We then introduce a natural penalty function $f$ , defined on $F$ , which is 0 if the local configuration near the origin is legal and $-1$ otherwise. We show that in the case of $\mathbb{Z}$ subshifts, for all sufficiently small perturbations, $g$ , of $f$ , the $g$ -maximizing invariant probability measures are supported on $X$ (that is, the set $X$ is stably maximized by $f$ ). However, in the two-dimensional case, we show that the well-known Robinson tiling fails to have this property: there exist arbitrarily small perturbations, $g$ , of $f$ for which the $g$ -maximizing invariant probability measures are supported on $F\setminus X$ .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgodic Theory and Dynamical SystemsSame topicCellular Automata and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207