MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963880336 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.02380

Combinatorial decompositions, Kirillov-Reshetikhin invariants and the\n Volume Conjecture for hyperbolic polyhedra

2016· article· en· W2963880336 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Kolpakov, Jun Murakami

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceWaseda UniversitySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPolyhedronMathematicsConjecturePolytopeCombinatoricsGraphVolume (thermodynamics)TetrahedronDecompositionPure mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We suggest a method of computing volume for a simple polytope $P$ in\nthree-dimensional hyperbolic space $\\mathbb{H}^3$. This method combines the\ncombinatorial reduction of $P$ as a trivalent graph $\\Gamma$ (the $1$-skeleton\nof $P$) by $I-H$, or Whitehead, moves (together with shrinking of triangular\nfaces) aligned with its geometric splitting into generalised tetrahedra. With\neach decomposition (under some conditions) we associate a potential function\n$\\Phi$ such that the volume of $P$ can be expressed through a critical values\nof $\\Phi$. The results of our numeric experiments with this method suggest that\none may associated the above mentioned sequence of combinatorial moves with the\nsequence of moves required for computing the Kirillov-Reshetikhin invariants of\nthe trivalent graph $\\Gamma$. Then the corresponding geometric decomposition of\n$P$ might be used in order to establish a link between the volume of $P$ and\nthe asymptotic behaviour of the Kirillov-Reshetikhin invariants of $\\Gamma$,\nwhich is colloquially know as the Volume Conjecture.\n

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207