Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 70's Parshin introduced his notion of the multidimensional residues of meromorphic top-forms on algebraic varieties. Parshin's theory is a generalization of the classical one-dimensional residue theory. The main difference between the Parshin's definition and the one-dimensional case is that in higher dimensions one computes the residue not at a point but at a complete flag of irreducible subvarieties. Parshin, Beilinson, and Lomadze also proved the Reciprocity Law for residues: if one fixes all elements of the flag, except for one, and consider all possible choices of the missing element, then only finitely many of these choices give non-zero residues, and the sum of these residues is zero. Parshin's constructions are completely algebraic. In fact, they work in very general settings, not only over complex numbers. However, in the complex case one would expect a more geometric variant of the theory. In my thesis I study Parshin residues from the geometric point of view. In particular, the residue is expressed in terms of the integral over a smooth cycle. Parshin-Lomadze Reciprocity Law for residues in the complex case is proved via a homological relation on these cycles. The thesis consists of two parts. In the first part the theory of Leray coboundary operators for stratified spaces is developed. These operators are used to construct the cycle and prove the homological relation. In the second part resolution of singularities techniques are applied to study the local geometry near a complete flag of subvarieties.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".