MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026763317 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnn136

A Refined Version of the Lang-Trotter Conjecture

2008· article· en· W2026763317 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Baier, Nathan Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConjectureInteger (computer science)Elliptic curveTRACE (psycholinguistics)Interval (graph theory)Distribution (mathematics)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let E be an elliptic curve defined over the rational numbers and r a fixed integer. Using a probabilistic model consistent with the Chebotarev density theorem for the division fields of E and the Sato–Tate distribution, Lang and Trotter conjectured an asymptotic formula for the number of primes up to x which have Frobenius trace equal to r, where r is a fixed integer. However, as shown in this note, this asymptotic estimate cannot hold for allr in the interval with a uniform bound for the error term, because an estimate of this kind would contradict the Chebotarev density theorem as well as the Sato–Tate conjecture. The purpose of this note is to refine the Lang–Trotter conjecture, by taking into account the “semicircular law,” to an asymptotic formula that conjecturally holds for arbitrary integers r in the interval ⁠, with a uniform error term. We demonstrate consistency of our refinement with the Chebotarev density theorem for a fixed division field, and with the Sato–Tate conjecture. We also present numerical evidence for the refined conjecture.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Mathematics Research NoticesSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207