MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587109443 · doi:10.1007/jhep03(2017)123

Refined open intersection numbers and the Kontsevich-Penner matrix model

2017· article· en· W2587109443 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Alexandrov, Alexandr Buryak, Ran J. Tessler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesETH Zürich FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRussian Foundation for Fundamental InvestigationsEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Moduli spaceConjectureBoundary (topology)Riemann surfaceCombinatoricsMatrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Space (punctuation)Pure mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of the intersection theory on the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary was recently initiated in a work of R. Pandharipande, J.P. Solomon and the third author, where they introduced open intersection numbers in genus 0. Their construction was later generalized to all genera by J.P. Solomon and the third author. In this paper we consider a refinement of the open intersection numbers by distinguishing contributions from surfaces with different numbers of boundary components, and we calculate all these numbers. We then construct a matrix model for the generating series of the refined open intersection numbers and conjecture that it is equivalent to the Kontsevich-Penner matrix model. An evidence for the conjecture is presented. Another refinement of the open intersection numbers, which describes the distribution of the boundary marked points on the boundary components, is also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207