MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609243979 · doi:10.1090/crmp/035/13

Compressions of group actions

2004· book-chapter· en· W2609243979 on OpenAlexaff
Zinovy Reichstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCRM proceedings & lecture notes · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)Group actionPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G be a finite group. A G-variety X is an algebraic variety with a regular G-action; X is faithful if every 1 6 = g ∈ G acts non-trivially. I will refer to a dominant G-equivariant rational (respectively, regular) map of faithful G-varieties as a rational (respectively, regular) compression. All varieties, actions, vector spaces, maps, etc., are assumed to be defined over a fixed algebraically closed base field k of characteristic zero; all varieties are assumed to be irreducible. I would like to thank V. L. Popov for stimulating discussions and for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this note. 1. Essential dimension Let V be a faithful linear representation of G and let d be the minimal value of dim(X), where the minimum is taken over all rational compressions f: V 99K X. Note that (a) (see [1, Theorem 3.1] or [6, Theorem 3.4(b)]) d depends only on the group G and not on the choice of V, and (b) (cf. [6, Proposition 7.1]) in the definition of d we may assume that X is a G-invariant subvariety of V, i.e., X is the closure of the image of a rational covariant f: V 99K V. The number d is called the essential dimension of G and is usually denoted by ed(G). This number has interesting connections with the algebraic form of Hilbert’s 13th problem, cohomological invariants, generic polynomials and other topics; these connections are described in [1] and [2]. The case where G = Sn is of particular interest. (The notion of essential dimension is also of interest in the context of algebraic groups; see [6] and [7].) Problem 1. Find ed(G) and, in particular, ed(Sn). The value of ed(G) is known if G is an abelian group; see [1, Theorem 6.1]. For symmetric groups, ed(Sn) ≥ [n/2]; this is proved, in different ways,

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCRM proceedings & lecture notesSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207