Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores two questions: (1) Which bigraded groups arise as the knot Floer homology of a knot in the three-sphere? (2) Given a knot, how many distinct knots share its Floer homology? Regarding the first, we show there exist bigraded groups satisfying all previously known constraints of knot Floer homology which do not arise as the invariant of a knot. This leads to a new constraint for knots admitting lens space surgeries, as well as a proof that the rank of knot Floer homology detects the trefoil knot. For the second, we show that any non-trivial band sum of two unknots gives rise to an infinite family of distinct knots with isomorphic knot Floer homology. We also prove that the fibered knot with identity monodromy is strongly detected by its knot Floer homology, implying that Floer homology solves the word problem for mapping class groups of surfaces with non-empty boundary. Finally, we survey some conjectures and questions and, based on the results described above, formulate some new ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".