MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205465157 · doi:10.1017/fms.2021.62

Nonvanishing for cubic <i>L</i>-functions

2021· article· en· W3205465157 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal David, Alexandra Florea, Matilde Laĺın

Bibliographic record

VenueForum of Mathematics Sigma · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMoment (physics)Riemann hypothesisWork (physics)Second moment of areaUpper and lower boundsPoint (geometry)MathematicsConstant (computer programming)Field (mathematics)CombinatoricsMathematical physicsPhysicsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We prove that there is a positive proportion of L-functions associated to cubic characters over $\mathbb F_q[T]$ that do not vanish at the critical point $s=1/2$ . This is achieved by computing the first mollified moment using techniques previously developed by the authors in their work on the first moment of cubic L-functions, and by obtaining a sharp upper bound for the second mollified moment, building on work of Lester and Radziwiłł, which in turn develops further ideas from the work of Soundararajan, Harper and Radziwiłł. We work in the non-Kummer setting when $q\equiv 2 \,(\mathrm {mod}\,3)$ , but our results could be translated into the Kummer setting when $q\equiv 1\,(\mathrm {mod}\,3)$ as well as into the number-field case (assuming the generalised Riemann hypothesis). Our positive proportion of nonvanishing is explicit, but extremely small, due to the fact that the implied constant in the upper bound for the mollified second moment is very large.

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)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum of Mathematics SigmaSame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207