MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1845436979 · doi:10.1017/s0027763000025873

Some Families of Componentwise Linear Monomial Ideals

2007· article· en· W1845436979 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher A. Francisco, Adam Van Tuyl

Bibliographic record

VenueNagoya Mathematical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCommutative Algebra and Its Applications
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSquare-free integerMonomialConjecturePolynomial ringCombinatoricsBetti numberMonomial idealMultiplicity (mathematics)Ideal (ethics)PolynomialDiscrete mathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let R = k[x1,…,xn] be a polynomial ring over a field k. Let J = {j1,…,jt} be a subset of {1,…, n}, and let mJ ⊂ R denote the ideal (xj1,…,xjt). Given subsets J1,…,Js of {1,…, n} and positive integers a1,…,as, we study ideals of the form These ideals arise naturally, for example, in the study of fat points, tetrahedral curves, and Alexander duality of squarefree monomial ideals. Our main focus is determining when ideals of this form are componentwise linear. Using polymatroidality, we prove that I is always componentwise linear when s ≤ 3 or when Ji ∪ Jj = [n] for all i ≠ j. When s ≥ 4, we give examples to show that I may or may not be componentwise linear. We apply these results to ideals of small sets of general fat points in multiprojective space, and we extend work of Fatabbi, Lorenzini, Valla, and the first author by computing the graded Betti numbers in the s = 2 case. Since componentwise linear ideals satisfy the Multiplicity Conjecture of Herzog, Huneke, and Srinivasan when char(k) = 0, our work also yields new cases in which this conjecture holds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNagoya Mathematical JournalSame topicCommutative Algebra and Its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207