MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1664104325 · doi:10.4310/jsg.2017.v15.n4.a7

The Hofer norm of a contactomorphism

2017· preprint· en· W1664104325 on OpenAlexaff
Egor Shelukhin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symplectic Geometry · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsInvariant (physics)Pure mathematicsConjectureNorm (philosophy)Degenerate energy levelsMetric (unit)CombinatoricsMathematical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that the $L^{\infty}$-norm of the contact Hamiltonian induces a non-degenerate right-invariant metric on the group of contactomorphisms of any closed contact manifold. This contact Hofer metric is not left-invariant, but rather depends naturally on the choice of a contact form $α,$ whence its restriction to the subgroup of $α$-strict contactomorphisms is bi-invariant. The non-degeneracy of this metric follows from an analogue of the energy-capacity inequality. We show furthermore that this metric has infinite diameter in a number of cases by investigating its relations to previously defined metrics on the group of contact diffeomorphisms. We study its relation to Hofer's metric on the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, in the case of prequantization spaces. We further consider the distance in this metric to the Reeb one-parameter subgroup, which yields an intrinsic formulation of a small-energy case of Sandon's conjecture on the translated points of a contactomorphism. We prove this Chekanov-type statement for contact manifolds admitting a strong exact filling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Symplectic GeometrySame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207