MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111985369 · doi:10.1007/s00526-023-02442-5

Constant rank theorems for curvature problems via a viscosity approach

2023· article· en· W3111985369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul Bryan, Mohammad N. Ivaki, Julian Scheuer

Bibliographic record

VenueCalculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsMathematicsCurvatureConstant (computer programming)GeneralizationMathematical proofEigenvalues and eigenvectorsRank (graph theory)Mean curvatureLipschitz continuityMathematical analysisSimple (philosophy)Pure mathematicsApplied mathematicsCombinatoricsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An important set of theorems in geometric analysis consists of constant rank theorems for a wide variety of curvature problems. In this paper, for geometric curvature problems in compact and non-compact settings, we provide new proofs which are both elementary and short. Moreover, we employ our method to obtain constant rank theorems for homogeneous and non-homogeneous curvature equations in new geometric settings. One of the essential ingredients for our method is a generalization of a differential inequality in a viscosity sense satisfied by the smallest eigenvalue of a linear map Brendle et al. (Acta Math 219:1–16, 2017) to the one for the subtrace. The viscosity approach provides a concise way to work around the well known technical hurdle that eigenvalues are only Lipschitz in general. This paves the way for a simple induction argument.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCalculus of Variations and Partial Differential EquationsSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207