MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389733972 · doi:10.1007/s00208-023-02775-8

Hofer geometry via toric degeneration

2023· article· en· W4389733972 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yusuke Kawamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematische Annalen · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichUniversité de MontréalYuhanCentre de Recherches MathématiquesÉcole Normale Supérieure
KeywordsMathematicsHypersurfaceTorusLagrangianQuadricFibrationHamiltonian (control theory)GeometryPure mathematicsHomotopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The main theme of this paper is to use toric degeneration to study Hofer geometry by producing distinct homogeneous quasimorphisms on the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. We focus on the (complex n-dimensional) quadric hypersurface and the del Pezzo surfaces, and study two classes of distinguished Lagrangian submanifolds that appear naturally in a toric degeneration, namely the Lagrangian torus which is the monotone fiber of a Lagrangian torus fibration, and the Lagrangian spheres that appear as vanishing cycles. For the quadrics, we prove that the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms admits two distinct homogeneous quasimorphisms and derive some superheaviness results. Along the way, we show that the toric degeneration is compatible with the Biran decomposition. This implies that for $$n=2$$ n = 2 , the Lagrangian fiber torus (Gelfand–Zeitlin torus) is Hamiltonian isotopic to the Chekanov torus, which answers a question of Y. Kim. We prove analogous results for the del Pezzo surfaces. We also discuss applications to $$C^0$$ C 0 symplectic topology.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematische AnnalenSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207