Heegner points, Stark–Heegner points, and values of <em>L</em>-series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elliptic curves over ℂ are equipped with a systematic collection of Heegner points arising from the theory of complex multiplication and defined over abelian extensions of imaginary quadratic fields. These points are the key to the most decisive progress in the last decades on the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture: an essentially complete proof for elliptic curves over ℂ of analytic rank ≤ 1, arising from the work of Gross–Zagier and Kolyvagin. In \[Da2], it is suggested that Heegner points admit a host of conjectural generalisations, referred to as Stark–Heegner points because they occupy relative to their classical counterparts a position somewhat analogous to Stark units relative to elliptic or circular units. A better understanding of Stark–Heegner points would lead to progress on two related arithmetic questions: the explicit construction of global points on elliptic curves (a key issue arising in the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture) and the analytic construction of class fields sought for in Kronecker’s Jugendtraum and Hilbert’s twelfth problem. The goal of this article is to survey Heegner points, Stark–Heegner points, their arithmetic applications and their relations (both proved, and conjectured) with special values of L-series attached to modular forms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".