Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider certain families of Calabi-Yau orbifolds and their mirror partners constructed from Fermat hypersurfaces in weighted projective 4-spaces. Our focus is the topological mirror symmetry. There are at least three known ingredients to describe the topological mirror symmetry, namely, integral vertices in reflexive polytopes, monomials in graded polynomial rings (with some group actions), and periods (and Picard-Fuchs differential equations). In this paper we will introduce Fermat motives associated to these Calabi-Yau orbifolds and then use them to give motivic interpretation of the topological mirror symmetry phenomenon between mirror pairs of Calabi-Yau orbifolds. We establish, at the Fermat (the Landau-Ginzburg) point in the moduli space, the one-to-one correspondence between the monomial classes and Fermat motives. This is done by computing the number of ${\bf F}_q$-rational points on our Calabi-Yau orbifolds over ${\bf F}_q$ in two different ways: Weil's algebraic number theoretic method involving Jacobi (Gauss) sums, and Dwork's $p$-adic analytic method involving Dwork characters and Gauss sums. We will discuss specific examples in detail.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".