Equivariant oriented cohomology of flag varieties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given an equivariant oriented cohomology theory h, a split reductive group $G$, a maximal torus $T$ in $G$, and a parabolic subgroup $P$ containing $T$, we explain how the $T$-equivariant oriented cohomology ring ${\ssf h}\_T(G/P)$ can be identified with the dual of a coalgebra defined using exclusively the root datum of $(G,T)$, a set of simple roots defining $P$ and the formal group law of $\ssf h$. In two papers \[Math. Z. 282, No. 3--4, 1191--1218 (2016; Zbl 1362.14024); "Push-pull operators on the formal affine Demazure algebra and its dual", Preprint, arXiv:1312.0019] we studied the properties of this dual and of some related operators by algebraic and combinatorial methods, without any reference to geometry. The present paper can be viewed as a companion paper, that justifies all the definitions of the algebraic objects and operators by explaining how to match them to equivariant oriented cohomology rings endowed with operators constructed using push-forwards and pull-backs along geometric morphisms. Our main tool is the pull-back to the $T$-fixed points of $G/P$ which embeds the cohomology ring in question into a direct product of a finite number of copies of the $T$-equivariant oriented cohomology of a point.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".