MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402706390 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.16141

The Riesz $α$-energy of log-concave functions and related Minkowski problem

2024· preprint· en· W4402706390 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Niufa Fang, Deping Ye, Zengle Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre Scientifique et Technique du BâtimentNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChongqing Municipal Education CommissionNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingChongqing Science and Technology Commission
KeywordsAlpha (finance)Riesz potentialMathematicsMinkowski spaceEnergy (signal processing)Concave functionMathematical analysisPure mathematicsRegular polygonMathematical physicsGeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We calculate the first order variation of the Riesz $α$-energy of a log-concave function $f$ with respect to the Asplund sum. Such a variational formula induces the Riesz $α$-energy measure of log-concave function $f$, which will be denoted by $\mathfrak{R}_α(f, \cdot)$. We pose the related Riesz $α$-energy Minkowski problem aiming to find necessary and/or sufficient conditions on a pregiven Borel measure $μ$ defined on $\Rn$ so that $μ=\mathfrak{R}_α(f,\cdot)$ for some log-concave function $f$. Assuming enough smoothness, the Riesz $α$-energy Minkowski problem reduces to a new Monge-Ampère type equation involving the Riesz $α$-potential. Moreover, this new Minkowski problem can be viewed as a functional counterpart of the recent Minkowski problem for the chord measures in integral geometry posed by Lutwak, Xi, Yang and Zhang (Comm.\ Pure\ Appl.\ Math.,\ 2024). The Riesz $α$-energy Minkowski problem will be solved under certain mild conditions on $μ$.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207