Computing error bounds for asymptotic expansions of regular P-recursive sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last several decades, improvements in the fields of analytic combinatorics and computer algebra have made determining the asymptotic behaviour of sequences satisfying linear recurrence relations with polynomial coefficients largely a matter of routine, under assumptions that hold often in practice. The algorithms involved typically take a sequence, encoded by a recurrence relation and initial terms, and return the leading terms in an asymptotic expansion up to a big-O error term. Less studied, however, are effective techniques giving an explicit bound on asymptotic error terms. Among other things, such explicit bounds typically allow the user to automatically prove sequence positivity (an active area of enumerative and algebraic combinatorics) by exhibiting an index when positive leading asymptotic behaviour dominates any error terms. In this article, we present a practical algorithm for computing such asymptotic approximations with rigorous error bounds, under the assumption that the generating series of the sequence is a solution of a differential equation with regular (Fuchsian) dominant singularities. Our algorithm approximately follows the singularity analysis method of Flajolet and Odlyzko [SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3 (1990), pp. 216–240], except that all big-O terms involved in the derivation of the asymptotic expansion are replaced by explicit error terms. The computation of the error terms combines analytic bounds from the literature with effective techniques from rigorous numerics and computer algebra. We implement our algorithm in the SageMath computer algebra system and exhibit its use on a variety of applications (including our original motivating example, solution uniqueness in the Canham model for the shape of genus one biomembranes).
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 | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".