MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226504875 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.06433

Analyticity, rank one perturbations and the invariance of the left spectrum

2022· preprint· en· W4226504875 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sameer Chavan, Soumitra Ghara, Paramita Pramanick

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsBounded functionBounded operatorInvertible matrixEigenvalues and eigenvectorsSpectrum (functional analysis)Rank (graph theory)Hilbert spaceOperator (biology)Essential spectrumMathematical physicsPhysicsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the question of the analyticity of a rank one perturbation of an analytic operator. If $\mathscr M_z$ is the bounded operator of multiplication by $z$ on a functional Hilbert space $\mathscr H_κ$ and $f \in \mathscr H$ with $f(0)=0,$ then $\mathscr M_z + f \otimes 1$ is always analytic. If $f(0) \neq 0,$ then the analyticity of $\mathscr M_z + f \otimes 1$ is characterized in terms of the membership to $\mathscr H_κ$ of the formal power series obtained by multiplying $f(z)$ by $\frac{1}{f(0)-z}.$ As an application, we discuss the problem of the invariance of the left spectrum under rank one perturbation. In particular, we show that the left spectrum $σ_l(T + f \otimes g)$ of the rank one perturbation $T + f \otimes g,$ $\,g \in \ker(T^*),$ of a cyclic analytic left invertible bounded linear operator $T$ coincides with the left spectrum of $T$ except the point $\inp{f}{g}.$ In general, the point $\inp{f}{g}$ may or may not belong to $σ_l(T + f \otimes g).$ However, if it belongs to $σ_l(T + f \otimes g) \backslash \{0\},$ then it is a simple eigenvalue of $T + f \otimes g.$

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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207