MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185648490 · doi:10.5206/mt.v1i1.14124

Log-lightning computation of capacity and Green's function

2021· article· en· W3185648490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter J. Baddoo, Lloyd N. Trefethen

Bibliographic record

VenueMaple Transactions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)LogarithmReciprocalMathematicsFunction (biology)EllipseSequence (biology)Exponential functionLaplace transformConvergence (economics)Complex planeComputationApplied mathematicsSimple (philosophy)Lightning (connector)AlgorithmMathematical analysisComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

See Video Abstract (click the "Video Abstract" button next to the "PDF" button) A basic measure of the size of a set E in the complex plane is the logarithmic capacity cap(E). Capacities are known analytically for a few simple shapes like ellipses, but in most cases they must be computed numerically. We explore their computation by the new "log-lightning'' method based on reciprocal-log approximations in the complex plane. For a sequence of 16 examples involving both connected and disconnected sets E, we compute capacities to 8–15 digits of accuracy at great speed in MATLAB. The convergence is almost-exponential with respect to the number of reciprocal-log poles employed, so it should be possible to compute many more digits if desired in Maple or another extended-precision environment. This is the first systematic exploration of applications of the log-lightning method, which opens up the possibility of solving Laplace problems with an efficiency not achievable by previous methods. The method computes not just the capacity, but also the Green's function and its harmonic conjugate. It also extends to "domains of negative measure" and other Riemann surfaces.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaple TransactionsSame topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207