共找到 20 条结果
This is a reaction to the article Symplectic bipotentials, in published form [2] Harakeh M, Ban M, de Saxce G. Symplectic bipotentials. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids. 2026;0(0) doi:10.1177/10812865251413554, and in preprint form [1] arXiv:2410.23122v1. We give evidence that most of the content of the article [2] is already covered in previous works, partially cited like [7] arXiv:0810.1419 [math.FA], or uncited, like [10] arXiv:1902.04598 [math-ph], [3] arXiv:2304.14158 [math-ph], which already introduced and studied symplectic bipotentials. These comments also apply to the conference paper version of [1] arXiv:2410.23122v1, namely to the article Harakeh, M., Ban, M., de Saxce, G. (2026). Symplectic Bipotentials for the Dynamics of Dissipative Systems with Non Associated Constitutive Laws. In: Nielsen, F., Barbaresco, F. (eds) Geometric Science of Information. GSI 2025. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 16034. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03921-7_31 .
The article Nuclear Fusion \textbf{66}, 016012 (2026) by Richard Fitzpatrick is based on fundamental errors in the physics of the evolution of the poloidal magnetic flux in tokamaks. This paper was inspired by an article $\big<$arxiv.org/abs/2507.05456$\big>$ by Allen Boozer, which was posted on arXiv in various versions. The September 9, 2025 version was submitted to the Physics of Plasmas and flatly rejected until the issues raised in the Nuclear Fusion paper had been addressed. Not only did the Nuclear Fusion paper make a number of fundamental errors in science, it also misrepresented the views clearly stated in the arXiv article and even more explicitly in email exchanges that were repeatedly cited as ``private communication."
Concerning Version 1 of ``Worst-case Nonparametric Bounds for the Student T-statistic'', arXiv:2508.13226: The main result there is incorrect. Concerning Version 2 of arXiv:2508.13226: At least the proof of the main result there is incorrect.
Because of a difference between his and our results for the Coulomb-gauge vector potential, Onoochin (arXiv:2507.08042) suspected that we might have used some (so far unidentified) mathematically illegal operations in our paper (arXiv:2507.02104). In this note, we present four methods to prove the validity of our results in dispute. Onoochin's method for calculating his Coulomb-gauge vector potential is among our four methods used in the proofs.
In this Comment, we discuss recent approaches to electromagnetic interference (EMI) mitigation in low-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (LF-MRI), as presented in arXiv preprints 2509.05955v1, 2406.17804v3, or 2210.06730v2. These and other works explore noise cancellation strategies based on external sensing coils for post-elimination of EMI. We argue that, under realistic conditions, such approaches lead to residual signal contamination that necessarily exceed that obtained with optimal hardware-based pre-elimination.
This note is a friendly technical check of Jeffrey Bub's There is No Quantum World (arXiv:2512.18400v2). I flag one unambiguous mathematical slip (a cardinality identity that implicitly assumes the Continuum Hypothesis) and then point out a few places where the discussion of infinite tensor products, ``sectorization,'' and measurement updates would benefit from sharper wording. Nothing here is meant as a critique of Bub's interpretive goals; the aim is simply to separate what is mathematically forced from what depends on choices of algebra, representation, or philosophical stance. I end with a short remark on Philippe Grangier's reply (arXiv:2512.22965v1).
This is a comment on arXiv:2202.01553. In regression Gaussian covariate p-values (Davies and D{ü}mbgen, arXiv:2202.01553) are used to control greedy forward subset selection by accounting for choosing the best when fitting many variables. Here we outline a simple proof of their Theorems 1 and 2, making alterations to simplify the exposition by including a new variable rather than excluding an included variable and some slight changes in notation.
We show that black holes can be made of light by adding gravity to the discussion of Alvarez-Dominguez et al., arXiv:2405.02389 [PRL 130, 041401 (2024)].
Part I: The error of eq. (15b) in my article [Z.D. Zhang, Phil. Mag. 87, 5309 (2007), arXiv:0705.1045] in the application of the Jordan-Wigner transformation does not affect the validity of the putative exact solution, since the solution is not derived directly from it. Other objections of Perk's Comment arXiv:0811.1802v2 are the same as those in Wu et al's Comments arXiv:0811.3876 and arXiv:0812.2837, which do not stand on solid ground and have been rejected in the previous Response arXiv:0812.2330. The conjectured solution can be utilized to understand critical phenomena in various systems, while the conjectures are open to prove rigorously. Part II: This is a Reply to Perk's Rejoinder arXiv:0901.2935. It is shown that the basis of the objections in Perk's Rejoinder, with respect to singularities at/near infinite temperature, is based on an error that mixes the concepts of T approaching infinite and T = infinite. It is shown that the reduced free energy per site f can be used only for finite temperatures (beta > 0), not for 'exactly' infinite temperature (beta = 0). At the thermodynamic limit N approaches infinite, besides infinite-temperature zeros of Z at z = -1 for H = +/-
We give historical remarks related to arXiv:2112.14547 ("A New Method of Construction of Permutation Trinomials with Coefficients 1", by Guo et al.). In particular, we show that the "new" permutation polynomials in that paper are actually well known. In addition we give a simpler derivation of these permutation polynomials than had been given previously, which demonstrates the general method of producing permutation polynomials that was introduced in arXiv:1310.0776.
We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.
This is a short reply to arXiv:2112.00436v1 and arXiv:2111.09347v1 by C. Bracken, J.R. Hance, and S. Hossenfelder. I precise some elements concerning i) the methodology of my previous version of the comment [arXiv:2111.13357v3] to arXiv:2111.09347v1, and ii) why the grand father-paradox (causal loop) presented in their article comes from a prejudice concerning retrocausality not from retrocausality or locality themselves.
We introduce ArGoT, a data set of mathematical terms extracted from the articles hosted on the arXiv website. A term is any mathematical concept defined in an article. Using labels in the article's source code and examples from other popular math websites, we mine all the terms in the arXiv data and compile a comprehensive vocabulary of mathematical terms. Each term can be then organized in a dependency graph by using the term's definitions and the arXiv's metadata. Using both hyperbolic and standard word embeddings, we demonstrate how this structure is reflected in the text's vector representation and how they capture relations of entailment in mathematical concepts. This data set is part of an ongoing effort to align natural mathematical text with existing Interactive Theorem Prover Libraries (ITPs) of formally verified statements.
In a recent paper, "Why does deep and cheap learning work so well?", Lin and Tegmark claim to show that the mapping between deep belief networks and the variational renormalization group derived in [arXiv:1410.3831] is invalid, and present a "counterexample" that claims to show that this mapping does not hold. In this comment, we show that these claims are incorrect and stem from a misunderstanding of the variational RG procedure proposed by Kadanoff. We also explain why the "counterexample" of Lin and Tegmark is compatible with the mapping proposed in [arXiv:1410.3831].
It is shown that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3247v1 against my paper Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163603 (2008) [arXiv:0809.3901] are obviously wrong or not essential.
arXiv admin note: This paper has been withdrawn by arXiv due to disputed and unverifiable authorship and affiliation
Group Relative Policy Optimization(GRPO) has become a cornerstone of modern reinforcement learning alignment, prized for its efficacy in foregoing an explicit value-critic by leveraging reward normalization across sampled trajectory cohorts. However, the method's reliance on a monolithic statistical baseline, such as the group mean, collapses the relational topology of the trajectory space into a single scalar, thereby erasing the fine-grained preference information essential for navigating complex, rank-sensitive reward landscapes. To address this issue, we introduce a novel framework, Lambda Policy Optimization (LambdaPO), that addresses this information-theoretic bottleneck by re-conceptualizing advantage estimation from a scalar value to a decomposed, pairwise preference structure. Specifically, the advantage for any given trajectory is formulated as the integrated sum of reward differentials against all peers in its cohort, where each pairwise comparison is dynamically attenuated by the policy's own probabilistic confidence in the established preference. To further mitigate the sparsity of binary outcome supervision, we augment the objective with a semantic density reward, der
This document consolidates publicly reported technical details about Metas Llama 4 model family. It summarizes (i) released variants (Scout and Maverick) and the broader herd context including the previewed Behemoth teacher model, (ii) architectural characteristics beyond a high-level MoE description covering routed/shared-expert structure, early-fusion multimodality, and long-context design elements reported for Scout (iRoPE and length generalization strategies), (iii) training disclosures spanning pre-training, mid-training for long-context extension, and post-training methodology (lightweight SFT, online RL, and lightweight DPO) as described in release materials, (iv) developer-reported benchmark results for both base and instruction-tuned checkpoints, and (v) practical deployment constraints observed across major serving environments, including provider-specific context limits and quantization packaging. The manuscript also summarizes licensing obligations relevant to redistribution and derivative naming, and reviews publicly described safeguards and evaluation practices. The goal is to provide a compact technical reference for researchers and practitioners who need precise, so
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become an effective paradigm for improving reasoning language models on tasks such as mathematics, coding, and scientific question answering. However, widely used group-relative objectives, such as GRPO, summarize each sampled group with scalar statistics and therefore discard fine-grained relational information among candidate responses. This weakens credit assignment under sparse outcome rewards, especially when multiple generated solutions differ only subtly in reasoning quality. We propose \textbf{LamPO}, a \textbf{Lambda-Style Policy Optimization} method that replaces scalar group advantages with a \emph{Pairwise Decomposed Advantage}. LamPO aggregates pairwise reward gaps within each response group and modulates each comparison by a confidence-aware weight computed from sequence log-probability differences, while retaining the critic-free and clipped-update structure of PPO-style optimization. When reference solutions are available, we further add a lightweight ROUGE-L-based dense auxiliary reward to reduce reward sparsity. Experiments on AIME24, AIME25, MATH-500, and GPQA-Diamond with Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B, and Phi-4-m
The statistics community, which has traditionally lacked a transparent and open peer-review system, faces a challenge of inconsistent paper quality, with some published work containing substantial errors. This problem resonates with concerns raised by Schaeffer et al. (2025) regarding the rapid growth of machine learning research. They argue that peer review has proven insufficient to prevent the publication of ``misleading, incorrect, flawed or perhaps even fraudulent studies'' and that a ``dynamic self-correcting research ecosystem'' is needed. This note provides a concrete illustration of this problem by examining two published papers, Wang, Zhou and Lin (2025) and Liu et al. (2023), and exposing striking and critical errors in their proofs. The presence of such errors in major journals raises a fundamental question about the importance and verification of mathematical proofs in our field. Echoing the proposal from Schaeffer et al. (2025), we argue that reforming the peer-review system itself is likely impractical. Instead, we propose a more viable path forward: the creation of a high-profile, reputable platform, such as a ``Refutations and Critiques'' track on arXiv, to provide