MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990755114 · doi:10.1017/s0305004111000636

Computing nilpotent and unipotent canonical forms: a symmetric approach

2011· preprint· en· W1990755114 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew C. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnipotentMathematicsNilpotentAlgebraically closed fieldPure mathematicsAlgebraic groupGroup (periodic table)Linear algebraic groupDiagonalCanonical formClassical groupAlgebraic numberLie groupReductive groupBilinear formCombinatoricsGroup theoryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let k be an algebraically closed field of any characteristic except 2, and let G = GL n ( k ) be the general linear group, regarded as an algebraic group over k . Using an algebro-geometric argument and Dynkin–Kostant theory for G we begin by obtaining a canonical form for nilpotent Ad( G )-orbits in ( k ) which is symmetric with respect to the non-main diagonal (i.e. it is fixed by the map f : ( x i , j ) ↦ ( x n +1− j , n +1− i )), with entries in {0,1}. We then show how to modify this form slightly in order to satisfy a non-degenerate symmetric or skew-symmetric bilinear form, assuming that the orbit does not vanish in the presence of such a form. Replacing G by any simple classical algebraic group we thus obtain a unified approach to computing representatives for nilpotent orbits of all classical Lie algebras. By applying Springer morphisms, this also yields representatives for the corresponding unipotent classes in G . As a corollary we obtain a complete set of generic canonical representatives for the unipotent classes in finite general unitary groups GU n ( q ) for all prime powers q .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207