MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918946240 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnz049

Chow Filtration on Representation Rings of Algebraic Groups

2019· article· en· W2918946240 on OpenAlexaff
Nikita A. Karpenko, Alexander Merkurjev

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsFiltration (mathematics)HomomorphismPure mathematicsAlgebraic varietyTorsion (gastropod)Function fieldRing (chemistry)Affine transformationAlgebraic numberField (mathematics)Mathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce and study a filtration on the representation ring $R(G)$ of an affine algebraic group $G$ over a field. This filtration, which we call Chow filtration, is an analogue of the coniveau filtration on the Grothendieck ring of a smooth variety. We compare it with the other known filtrations on $R(G)$ and show that all three define on $R(G)$ the same topology. For any $n\geq 1$, we compute the Chow filtration on $R(G)$ for the special orthogonal group $G:=O^+(2n+1)$. In particular, we show that the graded group associated with the filtration is torsion-free. On the other hand, the Chow ring of the classifying space of $G$ over any field of characteristic $\ne 2$ is known to contain non-zero torsion elements. As a consequence, any sufficiently good approximation of the classifying space yields an example of a smooth quasi-projective variety $X$ such that its Chow ring is generated by Chern classes and at the same time contains non-zero elements vanishing under the canonical homomorphism onto the graded ring associated with the coniveau filtration on the Grothendieck ring of $X$.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Mathematics Research NoticesSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207