MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2434896206 · doi:10.1063/1.4954909

Adjoint affine fusion and tadpoles

2016· article· en· W2434896206 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Urichuk, Mark A. Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAffine transformationFusionMathematicsPure mathematicsPhysicsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study affine fusion with the adjoint representation. For simple Lie algebras, elementary and universal formulas determine the decomposition of a tensor product of an integrable highest-weight representation with the adjoint representation. Using the (refined) affine depth rule, we prove that equally striking results apply to adjoint affine fusion. For diagonal fusion, a coefficient equals the number of nonzero Dynkin labels of the relevant affine highest weight, minus 1. A nice lattice-polytope interpretation follows and allows the straightforward calculation of the genus-1 1-point adjoint Verlinde dimension, the adjoint affine fusion tadpole. Explicit formulas, (piecewise) polynomial in the level, are written for the adjoint tadpoles of all classical Lie algebras. We show that off-diagonal adjoint affine fusion is obtained from the corresponding tensor product by simply dropping non-dominant representations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207