Cusp excursion in hyperbolic manifolds and singularity of harmonic measure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p style="text-indent:20px;">We generalize the notion of cusp excursion of geodesic rays by introducing for any <inline-formula><tex-math id="M1">\begin{document}$ k\geq 1 $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> the <em><inline-formula><tex-math id="M2">\begin{document}$ k^\text{th} $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> excursion</em> in the cusps of a hyperbolic <inline-formula><tex-math id="M3">\begin{document}$ N $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>-manifold of finite volume. We show that on one hand, this excursion is at most linear for geodesics that are generic with respect to the hitting measure of a random walk. On the other hand, for <inline-formula><tex-math id="M4">\begin{document}$ k = N-1 $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula>, the <inline-formula><tex-math id="M5">\begin{document}$ k^\text{th} $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> excursion is superlinear for geodesics that are generic with respect to the Lebesgue measure. We use this to show that the hitting measure and the Lebesgue measure on the boundary of hyperbolic space <inline-formula><tex-math id="M6">\begin{document}$ \mathbb{H}^N $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> for any <inline-formula><tex-math id="M7">\begin{document}$ N \geq 2 $\end{document}</tex-math></inline-formula> are mutually singular.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it