Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a pair of polynomials with real or complex coefficients, given in any particular basis, the problem of finding their GCD is known to be ill-posed. An answer is still desired for many applications, however. Hence, looking for a GCD of so-called approximate polynomials where this term explicitly denotes small uncertainties in the coefficients has received significant attention in the field of hybrid symbolic-numeric computation. In this paper we give an algorithm, based on one of Victor Ya. Pan, to find an approximate GCD for a pair of approximate polynomials given in a Lagrange basis. More precisely, we suppose that these polynomials are given by their approximate values at distinct known points. We first find each of their roots by using a Lagrange basis companion matrix for each polynomial, cluster the roots of each polynomial to identify multiple roots, and then “marry” the two polynomials to find their GCD. At no point do we change to the monomial basis, thus preserving the good conditioning properties of the original Lagrange basis. We discuss advantages and drawbacks of this method. The computational cost is dominated by the rootfinding step; unless special-purpose eigenvalue algorithms are used, the cost is cubic in the degrees of the polynomials. In principle, this cost could be reduced but we do not do so here.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".