MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803704614 · doi:10.1090/proc/14066

Representation theory of 𝐿_{𝑘}(𝔬𝔰𝔭(1|2)) from vertex tensor categories and Jacobi forms

2018· article· en· W2803704614 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Creutzig, Jesse Frohlich, Shashank Kanade

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Mathematical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Education and TrainingPacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsVertex operator algebraSuperalgebraVertex (graph theory)MathematicsOperator algebraSubalgebraCentral chargeCombinatoricsOperator (biology)Representation theoryPure mathematicsCurrent algebraAlgebra over a fieldGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work is to illustrate in a family of interesting examples how to study the representation theory of vertex operator superalgebras by combining the theory of vertex algebra extensions and modular forms. Let L k ( o s p ( 1 | 2 ) ) L_k\left (\mathfrak {osp}(1 | 2)\right ) be the simple affine vertex operator superalgebra of o s p ( 1 | 2 ) \mathfrak {osp}(1|2) at an admissible level k k . We use a Jacobi form decomposition to see that this is a vertex operator superalgebra extension of L k ( s l 2 ) ⊗ Vir ( p , ( p + p ′ ) / 2 ) L_k(\mathfrak {sl}_2)\otimes \text {Vir}(p, (p+p’)/2) where k + 3 / 2 = p / ( 2 p ′ ) k+3/2=p/(2p’) and Vir ( u , v ) \text {Vir}(u, v) denotes the regular Virasoro vertex operator algebra of central charge c = 1 − 6 ( u − v

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207