Fundamental domains for genus-zero and genus-one congruence subgroups
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we compute Ford fundamental domains for all genus-zero and genus-one congruence subgroups. This is a continuation of previous work, which found all such groups, including ones that are not subgroups of PSL (2,ℤ). To compute these fundamental domains, an algorithm is given that takes the following as its input: a positive square-free integer f , which determines a maximal discrete subgroup Γ 0 ( f ) + of SL (2,ℝ); a decision procedure to determine whether a given element of Γ 0 ( f ) + is in a subgroup G ; and the index of G in Γ 0 ( f ) + . The output consists of: a fundamental domain for G , a finite set of bounding isometric circles; the cycles of the vertices of this fundamental domain; and a set of generators of G . The algorithm avoids the use of floating-point approximations. It applies, in principle, to any group commensurable with the modular group. Included as appendices are: MAGMA source code implementing the algorithm; data files, computed in a previous paper, which are used as input to compute the fundamental domains; the data computed by the algorithm for each of the congruence subgroups of genus zero and genus one; and an example, which computes the fundamental domain of a non-congruence subgroup.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it