Quasi-isometry invariance of relative filling functions (with an appendix by Ashot Minasyan)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a finitely generated group G and collection of subgroups \mathcal{P} , we prove that the relative Dehn function of a pair (G,\mathcal{P}) is invariant under quasi-isometry of pairs. Along the way, we show quasi-isometries of pairs preserve almost malnormality of the collection and fineness of the associated coned-off Cayley graphs. We also prove that for a cocompact simply connected combinatorial G - 2 -complex X with finite edge stabilisers, the combinatorial Dehn function is well defined if and only if the 1 -skeleton of X is fine. We also show that if H is a hyperbolically embedded subgroup of a finitely presented group G , then the relative Dehn function of the pair (G, H) is well defined. In the appendix, it is shown that the Baumslag–Solitar group \mathrm{BS}(k,l) has a well-defined Dehn function with respect to the cyclic subgroup generated by the stable letter if and only if neither k divides l nor l divides k .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".