MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150140447 · doi:10.82308/20129

Isoperimetric inequalities for Laplace and Steklov eigenvalues

2018· article· en· W3150140447 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mikhail Karpukhin

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsIsoperimetric inequalityMathematicsInequalityEigenvalues and eigenvectorsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisCalculus (dental)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues of geometric operators have received a lot of attention in recent years. Such inequalities are of particular interest for the eigenvalues of Laplace and Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators on Riemannian manifolds, where they exhibit a surprising connection to the theory of minimal submanifolds. This bridge between analysis and geometry provides a path to solving problems from both fields. In the present manuscript we apply geometric methods to prove several new isoperimetric inequalities. In particular, we obtain an isoperimetric inequality for the first Laplace eigenvalue on non-orientable surfaces, improving upon results of P. Li and S.-T. Yau. We prove an isoperimetric inequality for all Steklov eigenvalues on orientable surfaces, improving upon results of A. Girouard and I. Polterovich. We also provide a high-dimensional analog of the latter inequality by considering Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators on differential forms. Finally, jointly with N. Nadirashvili, A. Penskoi and I. Polterovich we establish a sharp inequality for all Laplace eigenvalues on a two-dimensional sphere settling the conjecture of Nadirashvili proposed in 2002.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicNumerical methods in inverse problemsFrench-language works237,207