MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Irreducible finite-dimensional representations of equivariant map algebras

2011· article· en· W1964820590 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEquivariant mapRepresentation theory of SU(g,K)-moduleLie algebraIrreducible representationTensor (intrinsic definition)Algebra over a fieldScheme (mathematics)Representation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppose a finite group acts on a scheme $X$ and a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$. The corresponding equivariant map algebra is the Lie algebra $\mathfrak M$ of equivariant regular maps from $X$ to $\mathfrak g$. We classify the irreducible finite-dimensional representations of these algebras. In particular, we show that all such representations are tensor products of evaluation representations and one-dimensional representations, and we establish conditions ensuring that they are all evaluation representations. For example, this is always the case if $\mathfrak M$ is perfect. Our results can be applied to multiloop algebras, current algebras, the Onsager algebra, and the tetrahedron algebra. Doing so, we easily recover the known classifications of irreducible finite-dimensional representations of these algebras. Moreover, we obtain previously unknown classifications of irreducible finite-dimensional representations of other types of equivariant map algebras, such as the generalized Onsager algebra.

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)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207