MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413782160 · doi:10.1007/s00208-025-03271-x

Affine isoperimetric inequalities for higher-order projection and centroid bodies

2025· article· en· W4413782160 on OpenAlexafffund
Julián Haddad, Dylan Langharst, Eli Putterman, Michael Roysdon, Deping Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematische Annalen · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCarnegie Mellon UniversitySimons FoundationDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science FoundationChateaubriand Fellowship Program
KeywordsIsoperimetric inequalityMathematicsAffine transformationCentroidIsoperimetric dimensionProjection (relational algebra)Order (exchange)InequalityPure mathematicsMathematical analysisCombinatoricsGeometryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1970, Schneider introduced the $$m$$ m th order difference body of a convex body, and also established the $$m$$ m th-order Rogers–Shephard inequality. In this paper, we extend this idea to the projection body, centroid body, and radial mean bodies, as well as prove the associated inequalities (analogues of Zhang’s projection inequality, Petty’s projection inequality, the Busemann–Petty centroid inequality and Busemann’s random simplex inequality). We also establish a new proof of Schneider’s $$m$$ m th-order Rogers–Shephard inequality. As an application, a $$m$$ m th-order affine Sobolev inequality for functions of bounded variation is provided.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematische AnnalenSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207