MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044728436

Reconstruction of convex bodies from moments

2016· article· en· W3044728436 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftVillum Fonden
KeywordsMathematicsLegendre polynomialsFinite setConvex bodyRegular polygonConsistency (knowledge bases)Convex setApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMoment (physics)Velocity MomentsProper convex functionStability (learning theory)Convex analysisMethod of moments (probability theory)Convex optimizationGeometryComputer scienceStatisticsPhysicsClassical mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how much information about a convex body can be retrieved from a finite number of its geometric moments. We give a sufficient condition for a convex body to be uniquely determined by a finite number of its geometric moments, and we show that among all convex bodies, those which are uniquely determined by a finite number of moments form a dense set. Further, we derive a stability result for convex bodies based on geometric moments. It turns out that the stability result is improved considerably by using another set of moments, namely Legendre moments. We present a reconstruction algo- rithm that approximates a convex body using a finite number of its Legendre moments. The consistency of the algorithm is established using the stabil- ity result for Legendre moments. When only noisy measurements of Legendre moments are available, the consistency of the algorithm is established under certain assumptions on the variance of the noise variables.

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)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207