MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923008432 · doi:10.4171/jems/692

Adequate subgroups and indecomposable modules

2017· article· en· W1923008432 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Mathematical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndecomposable moduleDimension (graph theory)Galois moduleType (biology)Field (mathematics)Irreducible representationGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of adequate subgroups was introduced by Jack Thorne [60]. It is a weakening of the notion of big subgroups used by Wiles and Taylor in proving automorphy lifting theorems for certain Galois representations. Using this idea, Thorne was able to strengthen many automorphy lifting theorems. It was shown in [22] and [23] that if the dimension is smaller than the characteristic then almost all absolutely irreducible representations are adequate. We extend the results by considering all absolutely irreducible modules in characteristic p of dimension p. This relies on a modified definition of adequacy, provided by Thorne in [61], which allows p to divide the dimension of the module. We prove adequacy for almost all irreducible representations of SL _2 (p^a) in the natural characteristic and for finite groups of Lie type as long as the field of definition is sufficiently large. We also essentially classify indecomposable modules in characteristic p of dimension less than 2p-2 and answer a question of Serre concerning complete reducibility of subgroups in classical groups of low dimension.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Mathematical SocietySame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207