MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303958728 · doi:10.4153/s0008439522000601

Benford behavior and distribution in residue classes of large prime factors

2022· article· en· W4303958728 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Pollack, Akash Singha Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenford's lawMathematicsPrime (order theory)Prime factorModuliDistribution (mathematics)Numerical digitCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsArithmeticStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the leading digit distribution of thekth largest prime factor ofn(for each fixed $k=1,2,3,\dots $ ) as well as the sum of all prime factors ofn. In each case, we find that the leading digits are distributed according to Benford’s law. Moreover, Benford behavior emerges simultaneously with equidistribution in arithmetic progressions uniformly to small moduli.

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)0.038
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207