MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410776796 · doi:10.4171/jems/1657

Perverse schobers and 3d mirror symmetry

2025· article· en· W4410776796 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Gammage, Justin Hilburn, Aaron Mazel-Gee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Mathematical Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSymmetry (geometry)Mirror symmetryPure mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proposed physical duality known as 3d mirror symmetry relates the geometries of dual pairs of holomorphic symplectic stacks. It has served in recent years as a guiding principle for developments in representation theory. However, due to the lack of definitions, thus far only small pieces of the subject have been mathematically accessible. In this paper, we formulate abelian 3d mirror symmetry as an equivalence between a pair of 2-categories constructed from the algebraic and symplectic geometry, respectively, of Gale dual toric cotangent stacks. In the simplest case, our theorem provides a spectral description of the 2-category of spherical functors – i.e., perverse schobers on the affine line with singularities at the origin. We expect that our results can be extended from toric cotangent stacks to hypertoric varieties, which would provide a categorification of previous results on Koszul duality for hypertoric categories \mathcal{O} . Our methods also suggest approaches to 2-categorical 3d mirror symmetry for more general classes of spaces of interest in geometric representation theory. Along the way, we establish two results that may be of independent interest: (1) a version of the theory of Smith ideals in the setting of stable \infty -categories; and (2) an ambidexterity result for co/limits of presentable enriched \infty -categories over \infty -groupoids.

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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Mathematical SocietySame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207