MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385606337 · doi:10.1142/s1793042124500106

Squares in recurrences using elliptic curves

2023· article· en· W4385606337 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Number Theory · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsQuartic functionElliptic curveInteger (computer science)AssertionPrime (order theory)Bounding overwatchCombinatoricsSupersingular elliptic curveComputationPure mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous papers have studied the problem of determining upper bounds for the number of integer points on elliptic curves of the form [Formula: see text], and quartic curves of the form [Formula: see text]. Bounds for the number of integer solutions to such quartic equations typically depend on both of the coefficients [Formula: see text]. The purpose of this paper is to examine more closely how the number of integer points on such quartic curves seems to depend almost entirely on the number of prime factors of [Formula: see text]. This is done by focusing in on the problem of bounding the number of squares in certain recurrence sequences. In particular, using some arithmetic on elliptic curves, it is proved that infinitely many such sequences can have four squares, but that a fifth square remains elusive after extensive computation, suggesting that an absolute bound for the number of squares is more than likely, and also suggesting that the above assertion regarding the dependence on the number of prime factors of [Formula: see text].

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)0.013
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Number TheorySame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207