MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112156936 · doi:10.1112/plms/83.3.563

The Gromov-Witten Potential of A Point, Hurwitz Numbers, and Hodge Integrals

2001· article· en· W2112156936 on OpenAlexaff
I. P. Goulden, D. M. Jackson, Ravi Vakil

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the London Mathematical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsGenusModuli spaceSymplectic geometryAnsatzHurwitz polynomialPure mathematicsConjectureAlgebraic numberGenerating functionSeries (stratigraphy)Recursion (computer science)CombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldMathematical physicsMathematical analysisPolynomial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hurwitz numbers, which count certain covers of the projective line (or, equivalently, factorizations of permutations into transpositions), have been extensively studied for over a century. The Gromov-Witten potential F of a point, the generating series for descendent integrals on the moduli space of curves, is a central object of study in Gromov-Witten theory. We define a slightly enriched Gromov-Witten potential G (including integrals involving one ‘λ-class’), and show that, after a non-trivial change of variables, G = H in positive genus, where H is a generating series for Hurwitz numbers. We prove a conjecture of Goulden and Jackson on higher genus Hurwitz numbers, which turns out to be an analogue of a genus expansion ansatz of Itzykson and Zuber. As consequences, we have new combinatorial constraints on F, and a much more direct proof of the ansatz of Itzykson and Zuber. We can produce recursions and explicit formulas for Hurwitz numbers; the algorithm presented proves all such recursions. As examples we present surprisingly simple new recursions in genus 0 to 3. Similar recursions should exist for all genera. As we expect this paper also to be of interest to combinatorialists, we have tried to make it as self-contained as possible, including reviewing some results and definitions well known in algebraic and symplectic geometry, and mathematical physics. 2000 Mathematical Subject Classification: primary 14H10, 81T40; secondary 05C30, 58D29.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations90
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207