Perfect Matchings for the Three-Term Gale-Robinson Sequences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1991, David Gale and Raphael Robinson, building on explorations carried out by Michael Somos in the 1980s, introduced a three-parameter family of rational recurrence relations, each of which (with suitable initial conditions) appeared to give rise to a sequence of integers, even though a priori the recurrence might produce non-integral rational numbers. Throughout the '90s, proofs of integrality were known only for individual special cases. In the early '00s, Sergey Fomin and Andrei Zelevinsky proved Gale and Robinson's integrality conjecture. They actually proved much more, and in particular, that certain bivariate rational functions that generalize Gale-Robinson numbers are actually polynomials with integer coefficients. However, their proof did not offer any enumerative interpretation of the Gale-Robinson numbers/polynomials. Here we provide such an interpretation in the setting of perfect matchings of graphs, which makes integrality/polynomiality obvious. Moreover, this interpretation implies that the coefficients of the Gale-Robinson polynomials are positive, as Fomin and Zelevinsky conjectured.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it