MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042346138 · doi:10.1007/s10240-004-0020-z

Functoriality for the classical groups

2004· article· fr· W2042346138 on OpenAlexaff
James Cogdell, H. H. Kim, Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro, Freydoon Shahidi

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications mathématiques de l IHÉS · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functoriality is one of the most central questions in the theory of automor-phic forms and representations [1,2,35,36]. Locally and globally, it is a manifesta-tion of Langlands ’ formulation of a non-abelian class field theory. Now known as the Langlands correspondence, this formulation of class field theory can be viewed as giving an arithmetic parameterization of local or automorphic representations in terms of admissible homomorphisms of (an appropriate analogue) of the Weil-Deligne group into the Langlands dual group or L-group. When this conjectural parameterization is combined with natural homomorphisms of the L-groups it pre-dicts a transfer or lifting of local or automorphic representations of two reductive algebraic groups. As a purely automorphic expression of a global non-abelian class field theory, global functoriality is inherently an arithmetic process. In this paper we establish global functoriality from the split classical groups Gn = SO2n+1, SO2n, or Sp2n to an appropriate general linear group GLN, associated to the natural embedding of L-groups, for globally generic cuspidal representations π of Gn(A) over a number field k. We had previously presented functoriality for

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.339
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations182
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications mathématiques de l IHÉSSame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207