MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296557737 · doi:10.2140/ant.2022.16.1377

Explicit computation of symmetric differentials and its application to quasi-hyperbolicity

2019· article· en· W4296557737 on OpenAlexaff
Nils Bruin, Jordan Thomas, Anthony Várilly‐Alvarado

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsGravitational singularityPure mathematicsAlgebraic surfaceDimension (graph theory)Surface (topology)ComputationAlgebraic numberGenusRational surfaceSpace (punctuation)Mathematical analysisGeometryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop explicit techniques to investigate algebraic quasi-hyperbolicity of singular surfaces through the constraints imposed by symmetric differentials. We apply these methods to prove that rational curves on Barth's sextic surface, apart from some well-known ones, must pass through at least four singularities, and that genus 1 curves must pass through at least two. On the surface classifying perfect cuboids, our methods show that rational curves, again apart from some well-known ones, must pass through at least seven singularities, and that genus 1 curves must pass through at least two. We also improve lower bounds on the dimension of the space of symmetric differentials on surfaces with $A_1$-singularities, and use our work to show that Barth's decic, Sarti's surface, and the surface parametrizing $3\times 3$ magic squares of squares are all algebraically quasi-hyperbolic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207