Interactions between Algebraic Geometry and Noncommutative Algebra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meeting had over 45 participants from 11 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Norway, Russia, UK and the US) and 26 lectures were presented during the five day period. The sponsorship of the European Union allowed the organizers to invite and secure the participation of a number of young investigators. Some of these young mathematicians presented thirty minute lectures. As always, there was a substantial amount of mathematical activity outside the formal lecture sessions. This meeting explored the applications of ideas and techniques from algebraic geometry to noncommutative algebra . Several lecturers presented open problems to stimulate the interest of researchers in other areas. Areas covered include The sweep of the meeting can be seen from de Jong's contribution that uses contemporary algebraic geometry to prove a theorem in the classical theory of finite dimensional division algebras to the works of Keller-Reiten and Ingalls on cluster algebras. Additionally, de Jong notes a result obtained during the workshop with van den Bergh. Looking to the future, Goodearl and Zelmanov propose a number challenging problems. Zelmanov discusses both an interesting Lie algebra example and a possible connection to an old problem of Kurosh. The previous paragraph represents just a sampling of the scope and variety of the mathematics at the meeting. The abstracts following will give the whole story.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".