Symbolic Powers Versus Regular Powers of Ideals of General Points in ℙ<sup>1</sup>× ℙ<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent work of Ein–Lazarsfeld–Smith and Hochster–Huneke raised the problem of which symbolic powers of an ideal are contained in a given ordinary power of the ideal. Bocci–Harbourne developed methods to address this problem, which involve asymptotic numerical characters of symbolic powers of the ideals. Most of the work done up to now has been done for ideals defining 0-dimensional subschemes of projective space. Here we focus on certain subschemes given by a union of lines in ℙ3that can also be viewed as points in ℙ1✗ ℙ1. We also obtain results on the closely related problem, studied by Hochster and by Li and Swanson, of determining situations for which each symbolic power of an ideal is an ordinary power.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".