MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309681874 · doi:10.4153/s0008439522000704

Cyclic inner functions in growth classes and applications to approximation problems

2022· article· en· W4309681874 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bartosz Malman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHolomorphic and Operator Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSmoothnessSequence (biology)CombinatoricsContext (archaeology)ModuliFunction (biology)Entire functionUnit diskMathematical analysisPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is well known that for any inner function $\theta $ defined in the unit disk $\mathbb {D}$ , the following two conditions: (i) there exists a sequence of polynomials $\{p_n\}_n$ such that $\lim _{n \to \infty } \theta (z) p_n(z) = 1$ for all $z \in \mathbb {D}$ and (ii) $\sup _n \| \theta p_n \|_\infty < \infty $ , are incompatible, i.e., cannot be satisfied simultaneously. However, it is also known that if we relax the second condition to allow for arbitrarily slow growth of the sequence $\{ \theta (z) p_n(z)\}_n$ as $|z| \to 1$ , then condition (i) can be met for some singular inner function. We discuss certain consequences of this fact which are related to the rate of decay of Taylor coefficients and moduli of continuity of functions in model spaces $K_\theta $ . In particular, we establish a variant of a result of Khavinson and Dyakonov on nonexistence of functions with certain smoothness properties in $K_\theta $ , and we show that the classical Aleksandrov theorem on density of continuous functions in $K_\theta $ is essentially optimal. We consider also the same questions in the context of de Branges–Rovnyak spaces $\mathcal {H}(b)$ and show that the corresponding approximation result also is optimal.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicHolomorphic and Operator TheoryFrench-language works237,207