MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100348202

Alignment and the classification of Lorentz-signature tensors

2013· preprint· en· W3100348202 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Milson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignature (topology)Lorentz transformationTensor (intrinsic definition)Null (SQL)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsPure mathematicsWeyl tensorAlgebra over a fieldAlgebraic numberSet (abstract data type)MathematicsSection (typography)Theoretical physicsPhysicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceRiemann curvature tensorGeometryClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsData miningCurvature
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We define the notion of an aligned null direction, a Lorentzsignature analogue of the eigenvector concept that is valid for arbitrary tensor types. The set of aligned null directions is described by a a system of alignment polynomials whose coefficients are derived from the components of the tensor. The algebraic properties of the alignment polynomials can be used to classify the corresponding tensors and to put them into normal form. The alignment classification paradigm is illustrated with a discussion of bivectors and of Weyltype tensors. Note: an earlier version of this manuscript was published in the proceedings of SPT 2004. The present version has been expanded to include a discussion of complexified alignment. Section 4 also corrects errors contained in the earlier manuscript. 1. Introduction. We consider the algebraic aspects of the equivalence and classification problems in Lorentzian geometry. Let U be a representation of the Lorentz group G. The classification problem seeks a description of the orbit space U/G, and normal forms

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207