MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170406395 · doi:10.4171/jems/1070

The number of $D_4$-fields ordered by conductor

2021· article· en· W3170406395 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Ali Altuğ, Arul Shankar, Ila Varma, Kevin H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Mathematical Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsConductorAlgebraic number fieldGeometryMathematical analysisCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider families of quartic number fields whose normal closures over \mathbb{Q} have Galois group isomorphic to D_4 , the symmetries of a square. To any such field L , one can associate the Artin conductor of the corresponding 2-dimensional irreducible Galois representation with image D_4 . We determine the asymptotic number of such D_4 -quartic fields ordered by conductor, and compute the leading term explicitly as a mass formula, verifying heuristics of Kedlaya and Wood. Additionally, we are able to impose any local splitting conditions at any finite number of primes (sometimes, at an infinite number of primes), and as a consequence, we also compute the asymptotic number of order-4 elements in class groups and narrow class groups of quadratic fields ordered by discriminant. Traditionally, there have been two approaches to counting quartic fields, using arithmetic invariant theory in combination with geometry-of-number techniques, and applying Kummer theory together with L -function methods. Both of these strategies fail in the case of D_4 -quartic fields ordered by conductor since counting quartic fields containing a quadratic subfield with large discriminant is difficult. However, when ordering by conductor, we utilize additional algebraic structure arising from the outer automorphism of D_4 combined with both approaches mentioned above to obtain exact asymptotics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207