MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210863743 · doi:10.1017/s0004972722000041

AN APPLICATION OF BINARY QUADRATIC FORMS OF DISCRIMINANT TO MODULAR FORMS

2022· article· en· W4210863743 on OpenAlexaff
Zafer Selçuk Aygin, Kenneth S. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Identities
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNorthern Lakes College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDiscriminantModular formBinary quadratic formCusp formRamanujan's sumPure mathematicsCongruence (geometry)Binary numberε-quadratic formDedekind cutQuadratic equationDiscriminant function analysisDedekind eta functionCusp (singularity)Quadratic form (statistics)Theta functionQuadratic functionCombinatoricsArithmeticEisenstein seriesStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this note, we use Dedekind’s eta function to prove a congruence relation between the number of representations by binary quadratic forms of discriminant $-31$ and Fourier coefficients of a weight $16$ cusp form. Our result is analogous to the classical result concerning Ramanujan’s tau function and binary quadratic forms of discriminant $-23$ .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.318
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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical SocietySame topicAdvanced Mathematical IdentitiesFrench-language works237,207