MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1869370664 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.12809

Structure and enumeration of $(3+1)$-free posets (extended abstract)

2013· article· fr· W1869370664 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mathieu Guay-Paquet, Alejandro H. Morales, Eric Rowland

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPartially ordered setCombinatoricsMathematicsEnumerationBipartite graphStar productConjecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A poset is $(3+1)$-free if it does not contain the disjoint union of chains of length 3 and 1 as an induced subposet. These posets are the subject of the $(3+1)$-free conjecture of Stanley and Stembridge. Recently, Lewis and Zhang have enumerated $\textit{graded}$ $(3+1)$-free posets, but until now the general enumeration problem has remained open. We enumerate all $(3+1)$-free posets by giving a decomposition into bipartite graphs, and obtain generating functions for $(3+1)$-free posets with labelled or unlabelled vertices. Un poset sans $(3 + 1)$ est un poset qui n’a pas de sous-poset induit formé de deux chaînes disjointes de longueur 3 et 1. Ces posets sont l’objet de la conjecture $(3+1)$ de Stanley et Stembridge. Récemment, Lewis et Zhang ont énuméré les posets $\textit{étagés}$ sans $(3 + 1)$, mais en général la question d’énumération est restée ouverte jusqu'à maintenant. Nous énumérons tous les posets sans $(3 + 1)$ en donnant une décomposition de ces posets en graphes bipartis, et obtenons des fonctions génératrices qui les énumèrent, qu’ils soient étiquetés ou non.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207