MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409262709 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnaf083

On the Automorphism Groups of Hyperbolic Manifolds

2025· article· en· W4409262709 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Budney, David Gabai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAutomorphismPure mathematicsHyperbolic 3-manifoldAutomorphism groupRelatively hyperbolic groupHyperbolic manifoldMathematical analysisHyperbolic function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let ${\mathrm{Diff}}_{0}(N)$ represent the subgroup of diffeomorphisms that are homotopic to the identity. We show that if $N$ is a closed hyperbolic 4-manifold, then $\pi _{0}{\mathrm{Diff}}_{0}(N)$ is not finitely generated with similar results holding topologically. This proves in dimension-4 results previously known for $n$-dimensional hyperbolic manifolds of dimension $n\ge 11$ by Farrell and Jones in 1989 and $n\ge 10$ by Farrell and Ontaneda in 2010. Our proof relies on the technical result that $\pi _{0}{\mathrm{Homeo}}(S^{1}\times D^{3})$ is not finitely generated, which extends to the topological category smooth results of the authors. We also show that $\pi _{n-4} {\mathrm{Homeo}}(S^{1} \times D^{n-1})$ is not finitely generated for $n \geq 4$ and in particular $\pi _{0}{\mathrm{Homeo}}(S^{1}\times D^{3})$ is not finitely generated. These results are new for $n=4, 5$ and $7$. We also introduce higher dimensional barbell maps and establish some of their basic properties.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Mathematics Research NoticesSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207