Additive functions in short intervals, gaps and a conjecture of Erdős
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the aim of treating the local behaviour of additive functions, we develop analogues of the Matomäki–Radziwiłł theorem that allow us to approximate the average of a general additive function over a typical short interval in terms of a corresponding long average. As part of this treatment, we use a variant of the Matomäki–Radziwiłł theorem for divisor-bounded multiplicative functions recently proven in Mangerel (Divisor-bounded multiplicative functions in short intervals. arXiv: 2108.11401 ). We consider two sets of applications of these methods. Our first application shows that for an additive function $${\varvec{g:}} \mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {C}$$ g : N → C any non-trivial savings in the size of the average gap $$|{\varvec{g}}{} {\textbf {(}}{\varvec{n}}{} {\textbf {)}}-{\varvec{g}}{} {\textbf {(}}{\varvec{n}}-{\textbf {1}}{} {\textbf {)}} |$$ | g ( n ) - g ( n - 1 ) | implies that $${\varvec{g}}$$ g must have a small first centred moment i.e. the discrepancy of $${\varvec{g}}{} {\textbf {(}}{\varvec{n}}{} {\textbf {)}}$$ g ( n ) from its mean is small on average. We also obtain a variant of such a result for the second moment of the gaps. This complements results of Elliott and of Hildebrand. As a second application, we make partial progress on an old question of Erdős relating to characterizing constant multiples of $${{\textbf {log}}} \,{\varvec{n}}$$ log n as the only almost everywhere increasing additive functions. We show that if an additive function is almost everywhere non-decreasing then it is almost everywhere well approximated by a constant times a logarithm. We also show that if the set $$\{{\varvec{n}} \in \mathbb {N} : {\varvec{g}}{} {\textbf {(}}{\varvec{n}}{} {\textbf {)}} < {\varvec{g}}{} {\textbf {(}}{\varvec{n}}-{\textbf {1}}{} {\textbf {)}}\}$$ { n ∈ N : g ( n ) < g ( n - 1 ) } is sufficiently sparse, and if $${\varvec{g}}$$ g is not extremely large too often on the primes (in a precise sense), then $${\varvec{g}}$$ g is identically equal to a constant times a logarithm.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".