MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996585458 · doi:10.1112/s0010437x19007048

Galois level and congruence ideal for -adic families of finite slope Siegel modular forms

2019· article· en· W2996585458 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCompositio Mathematica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsGalois moduleSiegel modular formLift (data mining)Locus (genetics)Automorphic formCongruence (geometry)ResidualRepresentation theoryMorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider families of Siegel eigenforms of genus $2$ and finite slope, defined as local pieces of an eigenvariety and equipped with a suitable integral structure. Under some assumptions on the residual image, we show that the image of the Galois representation associated with a family is big, in the sense that a Lie algebra attached to it contains a congruence subalgebra of non-zero level. We call the Galois level of the family the largest such level. We show that it is trivial when the residual representation has full image. When the residual representation is a symmetric cube, the zero locus defined by the Galois level of the family admits an automorphic description: it is the locus of points that arise from overconvergent eigenforms for $\operatorname{GL}_{2}$ , via a $p$ -adic Langlands lift attached to the symmetric cube representation. Our proof goes via the comparison of the Galois level with a ‘fortuitous’ congruence ideal. Some of the $p$ -adic lifts are interpolated by a morphism of rigid analytic spaces from an eigencurve for $\operatorname{GL}_{2}$ to an eigenvariety for $\operatorname{GSp}_{4}$ , while the remainder appear as isolated points on the eigenvariety.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCompositio MathematicaSame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207