Let us fix a prime $\Gamma <p$
Instructional reform in STEM aims for the widespread adoption of evidence based instructional practices (EBIPS), practices that implement active learning. Research recognizes that faculty social networks regarding discussion or advice about teaching may matter to such efforts. But teaching is not the only priority for university faculty – meeting research expectations is at least as important and, often, more consequential for tenure and promotion decisions. We see value in understanding how research networks, based on discussion and advice about research matters, relate to teaching networks to see if and how such networks could advance instructional reform efforts. Our research examines data from three departments (biology, chemistry, and geosciences) at three universities that had recently received funding to enhance adoption of EBIPs in STEM fields. We evaluate exponential random graph models of the teaching network and find that (a) the existence of a research tie from one faculty member
 Publication Date:
 NSFPAR ID:
 10392286
 Journal Name:
 Innovative Higher Education
 ISSN:
 07425627
 Publisher:
 Springer Science + Business Media
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this

Abstract p and a homogeneous system ofm linear equations for$$a_{j,1}x_1+\dots +a_{j,k}x_k=0$$ ${a}_{j,1}{x}_{1}+\cdots +{a}_{j,k}{x}_{k}=0$ with coefficients$$j=1,\dots ,m$$ $j=1,\cdots ,m$ . Suppose that$$a_{j,i}\in \mathbb {F}_p$$ ${a}_{j,i}\in {F}_{p}$ , that$$k\ge 3m$$ $k\ge 3m$ for$$a_{j,1}+\dots +a_{j,k}=0$$ ${a}_{j,1}+\cdots +{a}_{j,k}=0$ and that every$$j=1,\dots ,m$$ $j=1,\cdots ,m$ minor of the$$m\times m$$ $m\times m$ matrix$$m\times k$$ $m\times k$ is nonsingular. Then we prove that for any (large)$$(a_{j,i})_{j,i}$$ ${\left({a}_{j,i}\right)}_{j,i}$n , any subset of size$$A\subseteq \mathbb {F}_p^n$$ $A\subseteq {F}_{p}^{n}$ contains a solution$$A> C\cdot \Gamma ^n$$ $\leftA\right>C\xb7{\Gamma}^{n}$ to the given system of equations such that the vectors$$(x_1,\dots ,x_k)\in A^k$$ $({x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k})\in {A}^{k}$ are all distinct. Here,$$x_1,\dots ,x_k\in A$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}\in A$C and are constants only depending on$$\Gamma $$ $\Gamma $p ,m andk such that . The crucial point here is the condition for the vectors$$\Gamma in the solution$$x_1,\dots ,x_k$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}$ to be distinct. If we relax this condition and only demand that$$(x_1,\dots ,x_k)\in A^k$$ $({x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k})\in {A}^{k}$ are not all equal, then the statement would follow easily from Tao’s slice rank polynomial method. However, handling the distinctness condition is much harder, and requires a new approach. While all previous combinatorial applications of the slice rank polynomial method have relied on the slice rank of diagonal tensors, we use a slice rank argument for a nondiagonal tensor in combination with combinatorial and probabilistic arguments.$$x_1,\dots ,x_k$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}$ 
Abstract Let
be an elliptically fibered$$X\rightarrow {{\mathbb {P}}}^1$$ $X\to {P}^{1}$K 3 surface, admitting a sequence of Ricciflat metrics collapsing the fibers. Let$$\omega _{i}$$ ${\omega}_{i}$V be a holomorphicSU (n ) bundle overX , stable with respect to . Given the corresponding sequence$$\omega _i$$ ${\omega}_{i}$ of Hermitian–Yang–Mills connections on$$\Xi _i$$ ${\Xi}_{i}$V , we prove that, ifE is a generic fiber, the restricted sequence converges to a flat connection$$\Xi _i_{E}$$ ${\Xi}_{i}{}_{E}$ . Furthermore, if the restriction$$A_0$$ ${A}_{0}$ is of the form$$V_E$$ ${V}_{E}$ for$$\oplus _{j=1}^n{\mathcal {O}}_E(q_j0)$$ ${\oplus}_{j=1}^{n}{O}_{E}({q}_{j}0)$n distinct points , then these points uniquely determine$$q_j\in E$$ ${q}_{j}\in E$ .$$A_0$$ ${A}_{0}$ 
Abstract We continue the program of proving circuit lower bounds via circuit satisfiability algorithms. So far, this program has yielded several concrete results, proving that functions in
and other complexity classes do not have small circuits (in the worst case and/or on average) from various circuit classes$\mathsf {Quasi}\text {}\mathsf {NP} = \mathsf {NTIME}[n^{(\log n)^{O(1)}}]$ $\mathrm{Quasi}\mathrm{NP}=\mathrm{NTIME}\left[{n}^{{\left(\mathrm{log}n\right)}^{O\left(1\right)}}\right]$ , by showing that$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ admits nontrivial satisfiability and/or$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms which beat exhaustive search by a minor amount. In this paper, we present a new strong lower bound consequence of having a nontrivial# SAT algorithm for a circuit class . Say that a symmetric Boolean function${\mathcal C}$ $C$f (x _{1},…,x _{n}) issparse if it outputs 1 onO (1) values of . We show that for every sparse${\sum }_{i} x_{i}$ ${\sum}_{i}{x}_{i}$f , and for all “typical” , faster$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms for circuits imply lower bounds against the circuit class$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ , which may be$f \circ \mathcal { C}$ $f\circ C$stronger than itself. In particular:$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms forn ^{k}size circuits running in 2^{n}/$\mathcal { C}$ $C$n ^{k}time (for allk ) implyN E X P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$# SAT algorithms for size$2^{n^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{{n}^{\epsilon}}$ circuits running in$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ time (for some$2^{nn^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{n{n}^{\epsilon}}$ε > 0) implyQ u a s i N P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$Applying
# SAT algorithms from the literature, one immediate corollary of our results is thatQ u a s i N P does not haveE M A J ∘A C C ^{0}∘T H R circuits of polynomialmore » 
Abstract Sequence mappability is an important task in genome resequencing. In the (
k ,m )mappability problem, for a given sequenceT of lengthn , the goal is to compute a table whosei th entry is the number of indices such that the length$$j \ne i$$ $j\ne i$m substrings ofT starting at positionsi andj have at mostk mismatches. Previous works on this problem focused on heuristics computing a rough approximation of the result or on the case of . We present several efficient algorithms for the general case of the problem. Our main result is an algorithm that, for$$k=1$$ $k=1$ , works in$$k=O(1)$$ $k=O\left(1\right)$ space and, with high probability, in$$O(n)$$ $O\left(n\right)$ time. Our algorithm requires a careful adaptation of the$$O(n \cdot \min \{m^k,\log ^k n\})$$ $O(n\xb7min\{{m}^{k},{log}^{k}n\})$k errata trees of Cole et al. [STOC 2004] to avoid multiple counting of pairs of substrings. Our technique can also be applied to solve the allpairs Hamming distance problem introduced by Crochemore et al. [WABI 2017]. We further develop time algorithms to compute$$O(n^2)$$ $O\left({n}^{2}\right)$all (k ,m )mappability tables for a fixedm and all or a fixed$$k\in \{0,\ldots ,m\}$$ $k\in \{0,\dots ,m\}$k and all . Finally, we show that, for$$m\in \{k,\ldots ,n\}$$ $m\in \{k,\dots ,n\}$ , the ($$k,m = \Theta (\log n)$$ $k,m=\Theta (logn)$k ,m )mappability problem cannot be solved in strongly subquadratic time unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis fails. This is an improved and extended version of a paper presented at SPIRE 2018. 
Abstract In this paper we disprove part of a conjecture of Lieb and Thirring concerning the best constant in their eponymous inequality. We prove that the best Lieb–Thirring constant when the eigenvalues of a Schrödinger operator
are raised to the power$$\Delta +V(x)$$ $\Delta +V\left(x\right)$ is never given by the onebound state case when$$\kappa $$ $\kappa $ in space dimension$$\kappa >\max (0,2d/2)$$ $\kappa >max(0,2d/2)$ . When in addition$$d\ge 1$$ $d\ge 1$ we prove that this best constant is never attained for a potential having finitely many eigenvalues. The method to obtain the first result is to carefully compute the exponentially small interaction between two Gagliardo–Nirenberg optimisers placed far away. For the second result, we study the dual version of the Lieb–Thirring inequality, in the same spirit as in Part I of this work Gontier et al. (The nonlinear Schrödinger equation for orthonormal functions I. Existence of ground states. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal, 2021.$$\kappa \ge 1$$ $\kappa \ge 1$https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205021016347 ). In a different but related direction, we also show that the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation admits no orthonormal ground state in 1D, for more than one function.