-
Explicit constructions of connections on the projective line with a maximally ramified irregular singularity
Authors:
Neal Livesay,
Daniel S. Sage,
Bach Nguyen
Abstract:
The Deligne--Simpson problem is an existence problem for connections with specified local behavior. Almost all previous work on this problem has restricted attention to connections with regular or unramified singularities. Recently, the authors, together with Kulkarni and Matherne, formulated a version of the Deligne--Simpson problem where certain ramified singular points are allowed and solved it…
▽ More
The Deligne--Simpson problem is an existence problem for connections with specified local behavior. Almost all previous work on this problem has restricted attention to connections with regular or unramified singularities. Recently, the authors, together with Kulkarni and Matherne, formulated a version of the Deligne--Simpson problem where certain ramified singular points are allowed and solved it for the case of Coxeter connections, i.e., connections on the Riemann sphere with a maximally ramified singularity at zero and (possibly) an additional regular singular point at infinity. A certain matrix completion problem, which we call the Upper Nilpotent Completion Problem, plays a key role in our solution. This problem was solved by Krupnik and Leibman, but their work does not provide a practical way of constructing explicit matrix completions. Accordingly, our previous work does not give explicit Coxeter connections with specified singularities. In this paper, we provide a numerically stable and highly efficient algorithm for producing upper nilpotent completions of certain matrices that arise in the theory of Coxeter connections. Moreover, we show how the matrices generated by this algorithm can be used to provide explicit constructions of Coxeter connections with arbitrary unipotent monodromy in each case that such a connection exists.
△ Less
Submitted 12 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Citations versus expert opinions: Citation analysis of Featured Reviews of the American Mathematical Society
Authors:
Lawrence Smolinsky,
Daniel S. Sage,
Aaron J. Lercher,
Aaron Cao
Abstract:
Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory for considering these questions because as an exact science, there is a narrow range of reasons for citations. In mathematics, virtually all published articles ar…
▽ More
Peer review and citation metrics are two means of gauging the value of scientific research, but the lack of publicly available peer review data makes the comparison of these methods difficult. Mathematics can serve as a useful laboratory for considering these questions because as an exact science, there is a narrow range of reasons for citations. In mathematics, virtually all published articles are post-publication reviewed by mathematicians in Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet) and so the data set was essentially the Web of Science mathematics publications from 1993 to 2004. For a decade, especially important articles were singled out in Mathematical Reviews for featured reviews. In this study, we analyze the bibliometrics of elite articles selected by peer review and by citation count. We conclude that the two notions of significance described by being a featured review article and being highly cited are distinct. This indicates that peer review and citation counts give largely independent determinations of highly distinguished articles. We also consider whether hiring patterns of subfields and mathematicians' interest in subfields reflect subfields of featured review or highly cited articles. We reexamine data from two earlier studies in light of our methods for implications on the peer review/citation count relationship to a diversity of disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 16 December, 2020; v1 submitted 11 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Power-law distributions, the h-index, and Google Scholar (GS) citations: a test of their relationship with economics Nobelists
Authors:
Stephen J. Bensman,
Alice Daugherty,
Lawrence J. Smolinsky,
Daniel S. Sage,
J. Sylvan Katz
Abstract:
This paper presents proof that Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for evaluating researchers' works. Nobelists in economics were the researchers under analysis, and two types of tests of the GS cites to their works were performed: distributional and semantic. Distributional tests found that the GS cites to the laureates' works conformed to the power-law model with an asymp…
▽ More
This paper presents proof that Google Scholar (GS) can construct documentary sets relevant for evaluating researchers' works. Nobelists in economics were the researchers under analysis, and two types of tests of the GS cites to their works were performed: distributional and semantic. Distributional tests found that the GS cites to the laureates' works conformed to the power-law model with an asymptote or "tail" conterminous with their h-index demarcating their core oeuvre, validating both GS and the h-index. Semantic tests revealed that their works highest in GS cites were on topics for which they were awarded the prize.
△ Less
Submitted 4 November, 2014;
originally announced November 2014.
-
Comparison of the Research Effectiveness of Chemistry Nobelists and Fields Medalist Mathematicians with Google Scholar: the Yule-Simon Model
Authors:
Stephen J. Bensman,
Lawrence J. Smolinsky,
Daniel S. Sage
Abstract:
This paper uses the Yule-Simon model to estimate to what extent the work of chemistry Nobelists and Fields medalist mathematicians is incorporated into the knowledge corpus of their disciplines as measured by Google Scholar inlinks. Due to differences in the disciplines and prizes, it finds that the work of chemistry Nobelists is better incorporated than that of Fields medalists.
This paper uses the Yule-Simon model to estimate to what extent the work of chemistry Nobelists and Fields medalist mathematicians is incorporated into the knowledge corpus of their disciplines as measured by Google Scholar inlinks. Due to differences in the disciplines and prizes, it finds that the work of chemistry Nobelists is better incorporated than that of Fields medalists.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2014;
originally announced April 2014.
