MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077681785 · doi:10.4310/mrl.2010.v17.n4.a9

On the distribution of the number of points on algebraic curves in extensions of finite fields

2010· article· en· W2077681785 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Omran Ahmadi, Igor E. Shparlinski

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Research Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsMathematicsMultiplicative functionDistribution (mathematics)Finite fieldElliptic curveCombinatoricsGenusAlgebraic curveInterval (graph theory)Asymptotic formulaAlgebraic number fieldAlgebraic numberIndependence (probability theory)Function (biology)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let C be a smooth absolutely irreducible curve of genus g ≥ 1 defined over Fq, the finite field of q elements.Let #C(F q n ) be the number of F q n -rational points on C.Under a certain multiplicative independence condition on the roots of the zetafunction of C, we derive an asymptotic formula for the number of n = 1, . . ., N such that (#C(F q n ) -q n -1)/2gq n/2 belongs to a given interval I ⊆ [-1, 1].This can be considered as an analogue of the Sato-Tate distribution which covers the case when the curve E is defined over Q and considered modulo consecutive primes p, although in our scenario the distribution function is different.The above multiplicative independence condition has, recently, been considered by E. Kowalski in statistical settings.It is trivially satisfied for ordinary elliptic curves and we also establish it for a natural family of curves of genus g = 2.

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)0.051
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Research LettersSame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207