MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015964209 · doi:10.1017/fms.2020.44

A maximally-graded invertible cubic threefold that does not admit a full exceptional collection of line bundles

2020· preprint· en· W3015964209 on OpenAlexafffund
David Favero, Daniel T. Kaplan, Tyler L. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueForum of Mathematics Sigma · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCounterexampleInvertible matrixDiagonalMathematicsConjectureSymmetry (geometry)Line (geometry)Pure mathematicsCombinatoricsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show that there exists a cubic threefold defined by an invertible polynomial that, when quotiented by the maximal diagonal symmetry group, has a derived category that does not have a full exceptional collection consisting of line bundles. This provides a counterexample to a conjecture of Lekili and Ueda.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum of Mathematics SigmaSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207