Disentangling a deep learned volume formula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We present a simple phenomenological formula which approximates the hyperbolic volume of a knot using only a single evaluation of its Jones polynomial at a root of unity. The average error is just 2 . 86% on the first 1 . 7 million knots, which represents a large improvement over previous formulas of this kind. To find the approximation formula, we use layer-wise relevance propagation to reverse engineer a black box neural network which achieves a similar average error for the same approximation task when trained on 10% of the total dataset. The particular roots of unity which appear in our analysis cannot be written as e 2 πi /( k +2) with integer k ; therefore, the relevant Jones polynomial evaluations are not given by unknot-normalized expectation values of Wilson loop operators in conventional SU(2) Chern-Simons theory with level k . Instead, they correspond to an analytic continuation of such expectation values to fractional level. We briefly review the continuation procedure and comment on the presence of certain Lefschetz thimbles, to which our approximation formula is sensitive, in the analytically continued Chern-Simons integration cycle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".