Bibliographic record
Abstract
We generalize the notion of a root system by relaxing the conditions that ensure that it is invariant under reflections and study the resulting structures, which we call generalized root systems (GRSs). Since both Kostant root systems and root systems of Lie superalgebras are examples of GRSs, studying GRSs provides a uniform axiomatic approach to studying both of them. GRSs inherit many of the properties of root systems. In particular, every GRS defines a crystallographic hyperplane arrangement. We believe that GRSs provide an intrinsic counterpart to finite Weyl groupoids and crystallographic hyperplane arrangements, extending the relationship between finite Weyl groupoids and crystallographic hyperplane arrangements established by Cuntz. An important difference between GRSs and root systems is that GRSs may lack a (large enough) Weyl group. In order to compensate for this, we introduce the notion of a virtual reflection, building on a construction of Penkov and Serganova in the context of root systems of Lie superalgebras. The most significant new feature of GRSs is that, along with subsystems, one can define quotient GRSs. Both Kostant root systems and root systems of Lie superalgebras are equivalent to quotients of root systems and all root systems are isomorphic to quotients of simply-laced root systems. We classify all rank 2 GRSs and show that they are equivalent to quotients of root systems. Finally, we discuss in detail quotients of root systems. In particular we provide all isomorphisms and equivalences among them. Our results on quotient of root systems provide a different point of view on flag manifolds, reproving results of Alekseevsky and Graev.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".