MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175144211 · doi:10.1017/fms.2023.5

Heights on stacks and a generalized Batyrev–Manin–Malle conjecture

2023· article· en· W3175144211 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan S. Ellenberg, Matthew Satriano, David Zureick-Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueForum of Mathematics Sigma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStack (abstract data type)ConjectureMathematicsAbelian groupBounded functionPure mathematicsAlgebraic numberDiagonalVector bundleField (mathematics)Group (periodic table)Rational pointModuli spaceCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We define a notion of height for rational points with respect to a vector bundle on a proper algebraic stack with finite diagonal over a global field, which generalizes the usual notion for rational points on projective varieties. We explain how to compute this height for various stacks of interest (for instance: classifying stacks of finite groups, symmetric products of varieties, moduli stacks of abelian varieties, weighted projective spaces). In many cases, our uniform definition reproduces ways already in use for measuring the complexity of rational points, while in others it is something new. Finally, we formulate a conjecture about the number of rational points of bounded height (in our sense) on a stack $\mathcal {X}$ , which specializes to the Batyrev–Manin conjecture when $\mathcal {X}$ is a scheme and to Malle’s conjecture when $\mathcal {X}$ is the classifying stack of a finite group.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum of Mathematics SigmaSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207