MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114648187 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2001-005-5

On the Curves Associated to Certain Rings of Automorphic Forms

2001· article· en· W2114648187 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kamal Khuri-Makdisi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre de Recherches MathématiquesMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityHarvard University
KeywordsMathematicsPure mathematicsComplex multiplicationElliptic curveAutomorphic formCompactification (mathematics)Algebra over a field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a 1987 paper, Gross introduced certain curves associated to a definite quaternion algebra B over Q ; he then proved an analog of his result with Zagier for these curves. In Gross’ paper, the curves were defined in a somewhat ad hoc manner. In this article, we present an interpretation of these curves as projective varieties arising from graded rings of automorphic forms on B × , analogously to the construction in the Satake compactification. To define such graded rings, one needs to introduce a “multiplication” of automorphic forms that arises from the representation ring of B × . The resulting curves are unions of projective lines equipped with a collection of Hecke correspondences. They parametrize two-dimensional complex tori with quaternionic multiplication. In general, these complex tori are not abelian varieties; they are algebraic precisely when they correspond to CM points on these curves, and are thus isogenous to a product E × E , where E is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication. For these CM points one can make a relation between the action of the p -th Hecke operator and Frobenius at p , similar to the well-known congruence relation of Eichler and Shimura.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207