MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112157416 · doi:10.1090/tran/8720

On the number of generators of an algebra over a commutative ring

2022· article· en· W3112157416 on OpenAlexafffund
Uriya A. First, Zinovy Reichstein, Ben Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgorithmAnnotationComputer scienceType (biology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theorem of O. Forster says that if R R is a noetherian ring of Krull dimension d d , then every projective R R -module of rank n n can be generated by d + n d+n elements. S. Chase and R. Swan subsequently showed that this bound is sharp: there exist examples that cannot be generated by fewer than d + n d+n elements. We view rank- n n projective R R -modules as R R -forms of the non-unital R R -algebra R n R^n where the product of any two elements is 0 0 . The first two authors generalized Forster’s theorem to forms of other algebras (not necessarily commutative, associative or unital); A. Shukla and the third author then showed that this generalized Forster bound is optimal for finite étale algebras. In this paper, we prove new upper and lower bounds on the number of generators of an R R -form of a k k -algebra, where k k is an infinite field and R R is a finitely generated k k -ring of Krull dimension d d . In particular, we show that, contrary to expectations, for most types of algeb

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.013
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207