MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982563266 · doi:10.1214/21-aap1697

Random concave functions

2022· article· en· W2982563266 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter H. Baxendale, Ting‐Kam Leonard Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversität WienUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsMathematicsConcave functionSimplexHyperplaneProbability measureRegular polygonCombinatoricsApplied mathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spaces of convex and concave functions appear naturally in theory and applications. For example, convex regression and log-concave density estimation are important topics in nonparametric statistics. In stochastic portfolio theory, concave functions on the unit simplex measure the concentration of capital, and their gradient maps define novel investment strategies. The gradient maps may also be regarded as optimal transport maps on the simplex. In this paper we construct and study probability measures supported on spaces of concave functions. These measures may serve as prior distributions in Bayesian statistics and Cover’s universal portfolio, and induce distribution-valued random variables via optimal transport. The random concave functions are constructed on the unit simplex by taking a suitably scaled (mollified, or soft) minimum of random hyperplanes. Depending on the regime of the parameters, we show that as the number of hyperplanes tends to infinity there are several possible limiting behaviors. In particular, there is a transition from a deterministic almost sure limit to a nontrivial limiting distribution that can be characterized using convex duality and Poisson point processes.

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)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207