MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255704370 · doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-10-02338-0

Advances in the theory of box integrals

2010· article· en· W4255704370 on OpenAlexafffund
David H. Bailey, Jonathan M. Borwein, Richard E. Crandall

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Computation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical functions and polynomials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMathematicsCompendiumUnit cubeInteger (computer science)Cube (algebra)Unit (ring theory)Set (abstract data type)CombinatoricsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Box integrals—expectations ⟨ | r → | s ⟩ \langle |\vec r|^s \rangle or ⟨ | r → − q → | s ⟩ \langle |\vec r - \vec q|^s \rangle over the unit n n -cube—have over three decades been occasionally given closed forms for isolated n , s n, s . By employing experimental mathematics together with a new, global analytic strategy, we prove that for each of n = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 n = 1,2,3,4 dimensions the box integrals are for any integer s s hypergeometrically closed (“hyperclosed”) in an explicit sense we clarify herein. For n = 5 n = 5 dimensions, such a complete hyperclosure proof is blocked by a single, unresolved integral we call K 5 {\mathcal K}_5 ; although we do prove that all but a finite set of ( n = 5 n = 5 ) cases enjoy hyperclosure. We supply a compendium of exemplary closed forms that arise naturally from the theory.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of ComputationSame topicMathematical functions and polynomialsFrench-language works237,207