MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111415984 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v16i1a19

Excluding cosmetic surgeries on hyperbolic 3-manifolds

2025· article· en· W7111415984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)ConjectureKnot theoryKnot invariantTricolorability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper employs knot invariants and results from hyperbolic geometry to develop a practical procedure for checking the cosmetic surgery conjecture on any given one-cusped manifold. This procedure has been used to establish the following computational results. First, we verify that all knots up to 19 crossings, and all one-cusped 3-manifolds in the SnapPy census, do not admit any purely cosmetic surgeries. Second, we check that a hyperbolic knot with at most 15 crossings only admits chirally cosmetic surgeries when the knot itself is amphicheiral. Third, we enumerate all knots up to 13 crossings that share a common Dehn filling with the figure-8 knot. The code that verifies these results is publicly available on GitHub.

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)0.000
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207