MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142703287 · doi:10.1007/s10468-022-10165-y

Superpotentials and Quiver Algebras for Semisimple Hopf Actions

2022· article· en· W3142703287 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Simon Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgebras and Representation Theory · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of ManchesterLondon Mathematical SocietyUniversity of Washington
KeywordsQuiverMathematicsSuperpotentialQuotientHopf algebraIsomorphism (crystallography)Pure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldBiproductAction (physics)Cellular algebraAlgebra representationFunctorSupersymmetryMathematical physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider the action of a semisimple Hopf algebra H on an m-Koszul Artin–Schelter regular algebra A. Such an algebra A is a derivation-quotient algebra for some twisted superpotential w, and we show that the homological determinant of the action of H on A can be easily calculated using w. Using this, we show that the smash product A#H is also a derivation-quotient algebra, and use this to explicitly determine a quiver algebra Λ to which A#H is Morita equivalent, generalising a result of Bocklandt–Schedler–Wemyss. We also show how Λ can be used to determine whether the Auslander map is an isomorphism. We compute a number of examples, and show how several results for the quantum Kleinian singularities studied by Chan–Kirkman–Walton–Zhang follow using our techniques.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgebras and Representation TheorySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207