MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400054768 · doi:10.1112/jlms.12952

Sarnak's conjecture in quantum computing, cyclotomic unitary group coranks, and Shimura curves

2024· article· en· W4400054768 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Ingalls, Bruce W. Jordan, Allan Keeton, Adam Logan, Yevgeny Zaytman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the London Mathematical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Geometry
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnitary stateConjectureMathematicsGroup (periodic table)Pure mathematicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sarnak's conjecture in quantum computing concerns when the groups and over cyclotomic rings with , , are generated by the Clifford‐cyclotomic gate set. We previously settled this using Euler–Poincaré characteristics. A generalization of Sarnak's conjecture is to ask when these groups are generated by torsion elements. An obstruction to this is provided by the corank: a group has only if is not generated by torsion elements. In this paper, we study the corank of these cyclotomic unitary groups in the families and , , by letting them act on Bruhat–Tits trees. The quotients by this action are finite graphs whose first Betti number is the corank of the group. Our main result is that for the families and , the corank grows doubly exponentially in as ; it is 0 precisely when , and indeed, the cyclotomic unitary groups are generated by torsion elements (in fact by Clifford‐cyclotomic gates) for these . We give explicit lower bounds for the corank in two different ways. The first is to bound the isotropy subgroups in the action on the tree by explicit cyclotomy. The second is to relate our graphs to Shimura curves over via interchanging local invariants and applying a result of Selberg and Zograf. We show that the cyclotomy arguments give the stronger bounds. In a final section, we execute a program of Sarnak to show that our results for the and families are sufficient to give a second proof of Sarnak's conjecture.

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)0.001
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicAdvanced Algebra and GeometryFrench-language works237,207