Chow Filtration on Representation Rings of Algebraic Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".