MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969964811 · doi:10.4153/s0008414x20000711

Fourier coefficients of minimal and next-to-minimal automorphic representations of simply-laced groups

2020· preprint· en· W2969964811 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dmitry Gourevitch, Henrik P. A. Gustafsson, Axel Kleinschmidt, Daniel Persson, Siddhartha Sahi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryVetenskapsrådetKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAutomorphic formMathematicsCusp formUnipotentCusp (singularity)Fourier seriesLanglands–Shahidi methodPure mathematicsAutomorphic L-functionDegenerate energy levelsFourier transformEisenstein seriesGroup (periodic table)Converse theoremType (biology)Mathematical analysisModular formGeometryPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we analyze Fourier coefficients of automorphic forms on a finite cover G of an adelic split simply-laced group. Let $\pi $ be a minimal or next-to-minimal automorphic representation of G . We prove that any $\eta \in \pi $ is completely determined by its Whittaker coefficients with respect to (possibly degenerate) characters of the unipotent radical of a fixed Borel subgroup, analogously to the Piatetski-Shapiro–Shalika formula for cusp forms on $\operatorname {GL}_n$ . We also derive explicit formulas expressing the form, as well as all its maximal parabolic Fourier coefficient, in terms of these Whittaker coefficients. A consequence of our results is the nonexistence of cusp forms in the minimal and next-to-minimal automorphic spectrum. We provide detailed examples for G of type $D_5$ and $E_8$ with a view toward applications to scattering amplitudes in string theory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207