MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038944322 · doi:10.1142/s1793525321500096

Conjugation curvature for Cayley graphs

2020· preprint· en· W3038944322 on OpenAlexaff
Assaf Bar-Natan, Moon Duchin, Robert Kropholler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Topology and Analysis · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDirectorate for Mathematical and Physical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsCurvatureRicci curvatureSign (mathematics)Cayley graphNilpotentAbelian groupGroup (periodic table)Pure mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a notion of Ricci curvature for Cayley graphs that can be thought of as “medium-scale” because it is neither infinitesimal nor asymptotic, but based on a chosen finite radius parameter. We argue that it gives the foundation for a definition of Ricci curvature well adapted to geometric group theory, beginning by observing that the sign can easily be characterized in terms of conjugation in the group. With this conjugation curvature [Formula: see text], abelian groups are identically flat, and in the other direction we show that [Formula: see text] implies the group is virtually abelian. Beyond that, [Formula: see text] captures known curvature phenomena in right-angled Artin groups (including free groups) and nilpotent groups, and has a strong relationship to other group-theoretic notions like growth rate and dead ends. We study dependence on generators and behavior under embeddings, and close with directions for further development and study.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Topology and AnalysisSame topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207