MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963448814 · doi:10.4310/ajm.2014.v18.n5.a2

Dirac Lie groups

2014· article· en· W2963448814 on OpenAlexafffund
David Li-Bland, Eckhard Meinrenken

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Mathematics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsLie groupPure mathematicsSimple Lie group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A classical theorem of Drinfel'd states that the category of simply connected Poisson Lie groups H is isomorphic to the category of Manin triples (d, g, h), where h is the Lie algebra of H.In this paper, we consider Dirac Lie groups, that is, Lie groups H endowed with a multiplicative Courant algebroid A and a Dirac structure E ⊆ A for which the multiplication is a Dirac morphism.It turns out that the simply connected Dirac Lie groups are classified by so-called Dirac Manin triples.We give an explicit construction of the Dirac Lie group structure defined by a Dirac Manin triple, and develop its basic properties.Key words.Poisson Lie Groups, Multiplicative Dirac Structures, Multiplicative Courant algebroids, Lie groupoids, Lie bialgebras, Manin triples, Multiplicative Manin pairs, quasi-Poisson geometry, Group valued moment maps.AMS subject classifications.53D17 (Primary), 17B62, 53D20.0. Introduction.Dirac structures were introduced by T. Courant [6] as a common framework for closed 2-forms and Poisson structures on manifolds.He showed that the integrability condition dω = 0 for 2-forms and [π, π] = 0 for bivector fields admits a common generalization to an integrability condition on Lagrangian subbundles E ⊆ TM = T M ⊕ T * M relative to a certain bracket on Γ(TM ).Liu-Weinstein-Xu [21] generalized Courant's original set-up, replacing TM with a more general notion of a Courant algebroid A → M .The theory of Courant algebroids and Dirac structures was clarified and simplified in the work of Dorfman [7], Ševera [36, Letter no.7], Roytenberg [34], Uchino [39], and others.It has recently gained attention through the development of generalized complex geometry [11, 13], and it provides a unified setting for various types moment maps [1, 5].A Poisson Lie group is a Lie group H, equipped with a Poisson structure such that the multiplication map is Poisson.To extend this definition to Dirac geometry, it is required that the Courant algebroid A itself has a multiplicative structure.As suggested by Mehta [27] and further explored in [20], we require that A carries a VBgroupoid structure A ⇉ g over the group H ⇉ pt, in such a way that the groupoid multiplication is a Courant morphism Mult A : A×A A. (For the standard Courant algebroid A = TH this structure is automatic, with g = h * .)One then has a notion of a multiplicative Dirac structure E ⊆ A. In the case of TH these were classified in the work of Ortiz [30] and Jotz [15], independently.While [15,30] refer to multiplicative Dirac structures as Dirac Lie group structures, we will reserve this latter term for the case that the multiplication map is a Dirac morphism (i.e a morphism of Manin pairs as in [5]).For A = TH, only the Poisson Lie group structures are Dirac Lie group structures in our sense, but many more examples are obtained by considering more general Courant algebroids.These include the well known Cartan-Dirac structure (cf.[1] and references therein), and the examples in Section 5 of [16].One of the goals of this paper is to develop the theory of Dirac Lie groups in this setting.The super-geometric interpretation of Dirac Lie group structures was previously studied

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of MathematicsSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207