MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951591003 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.math/0703297

The log-concavity conjecture for the Duistermaat-Heckman measure revisited

2007· preprint· en· W2951591003 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCounterexampleConjectureSymplectic geometryCombinatoricsDisjoint setsHamiltonian (control theory)TorusMeasure (data warehouse)Manifold (fluid mechanics)Pure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Karshon constructed the first counterexample to the log-concavity conjecture for the Duistermaat-Heckman measure: a Hamiltonian six manifold whose fixed points set is the disjoint union of two copies of $T^4$. In this article, for any closed symplectic four manifold $N$ with $b+$ greater than 1, we show that there is a Hamiltonian six manifold $M$ such that its fixed points set is the disjoint union of two copies of $N$ and such that its Duistermaat-Heckman function is not log-concave. On the other hand, we prove that if there is a torus action of complexity two such that all the symplectic reduced spaces taken at regular values satisfy the condition $b+=1$, then its Duistermaat-Heckman function has to be log-concave. As a consequence, we prove the log-concavity conjecture for Hamiltonian circle actions on six manifolds such that the fixed points sets have no four dimensional components, or only have four dimensional pieces with $b+=1$.

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)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207