MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Equivariant Schubert calculus and geometric Satake

2024· article· en· W4400914755 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine Labelle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Algebra · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEquivariant mapSchubert calculusMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsCalculus (dental)Grassmannian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main classical result of Schubert calculus is that multiplication rules for the basis of Schubert cycles inside the cohomology ring of the Grassmannian G ( n , m ) are the same as multiplication rules for the basis of Schur polynomials in the ring of symmetric polynomials. In this paper, we explain how to recover this somewhat mysterious connection by using the geometric Satake correspondence to put the structure of a representation of G L m on H • ( G ( n , m ) ) and comparing it to the Fock space representation on symmetric polynomials. This proof also extends to equivariant Schubert calculus, and gives an explanation of the relationship between torus-equivariant cohomology of Grassmannians and double Schur polynomials.

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)0.000
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AlgebraSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207