MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990700831

The distribution of the $L_4$ norm of Littlewood polynomials

2019· preprint· en· W2990700831 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Jedwab

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDifference polynomialsReciprocalNorm (philosophy)Classical orthogonal polynomialsOrthogonal polynomialsDiscrete orthogonal polynomialsSkewCombinatoricsPolynomialMacdonald polynomialsDegree (music)Gegenbauer polynomialsWilson polynomialsUniform normSymmetric polynomialPure mathematicsMathematical analysisMatrix polynomial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical conjectures due to Littlewood, Erdős and Golay concern the asymptotic growth of the $L_p$ norm of a Littlewood polynomial (having all coefficients in $\{1, -1\}$) as its degree increases, for various values of $p$. Attempts over more than fifty years to settle these conjectures have identified certain classes of the Littlewood polynomials as particularly important: skew-symmetric polynomials, reciprocal polynomials, and negative reciprocal polynomials. Using only elementary methods, we find an exact formula for the mean and variance of the $L_4$ norm of polynomials in each of these classes, and in the class of all Littlewood polynomials. A consequence is that, for each of the four classes, the normalized $L_4$ norm of a polynomial drawn uniformly at random from the class converges in probability to a constant as the degree increases.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207