MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403979583 · doi:10.5206/mt.v4i3.21606

How to Deal With Interpolation Points That Are Not Well-Spaced in Polynomial and Rational Interpolation

2024· article· en· W4403979583 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaple Transactions · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)Polynomial interpolationBirkhoff interpolationMathematicsBilinear interpolationPolynomialApplied mathematicsMultivariate interpolationNearest-neighbor interpolationSpline interpolationLinear interpolationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatisticsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the growth rate of the Lebesgue constant of polynomial Lagrange interpolation and barycentric rational interpolation with pre-assigned poles. Its magnitude is of importance when evaluating the conditioning of the interpolation problems under investigation or answering the question whether the extra work to calculate the best polynomial or rational approximant isworthwhile. Since the growth rate of the Lebesgue constant has such important numerical consequences, the problem remains of course what to do if the interpolation points are not at the ideal positions. In this paper we tackle this problem and propose a possible alternative approach in that situation. The technique is illustrated on several numerical examples.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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