MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000157041 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0038

Globe-hopping

2020· article· en· W3000157041 on OpenAlexafffund
Dmitry Chistikov, Olga Goulko, Adrian Kent, Mike Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaFoundational Questions Institute
KeywordsAntipodal pointCombinatoricsMathematicsCoprime integersLawnJumpPhysicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider versions of the grasshopper problem (Goulko & Kent 2017 Proc. R. Soc. A 473 , 20170494) on the circle and the sphere, which are relevant to Bell inequalities. For a circle of circumference 2 π , we show that for unconstrained lawns of any length and arbitrary jump lengths, the supremum of the probability for the grasshopper’s jump to stay on the lawn is one. For antipodal lawns, which by definition contain precisely one of each pair of opposite points and have length π , we show this is true except when the jump length ϕ is of the form π ( p / q ) with p , q coprime and p odd. For these jump lengths, we show the optimal probability is 1 − 1/ q and construct optimal lawns. For a pair of antipodal lawns, we show that the optimal probability of jumping from one onto the other is 1 − 1/ q for p , q coprime, p odd and q even, and one in all other cases. For an antipodal lawn on the sphere, it is known (Kent & Pitalúa-García 2014 Phys. Rev. A 90 , 062124) that if ϕ = π / q , where q ∈ N , then the optimal retention probability of 1 − 1/ q for the grasshopper’s jump is provided by a hemispherical lawn. We show that in all other cases where 0 < ϕ < π /2, hemispherical lawns are not optimal, disproving the hemispherical colouring maximality hypotheses (Kent & Pitalúa-García 2014 Phys. Rev. A 90 , 062124). We discuss the implications for Bell experiments and related cryptographic tests.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207