MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035210296 · doi:10.1093/imrn/rnu025

Rotor-Routing and Spanning Trees on Planar Graphs

2014· article· en· W2035210296 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Mathematics Research Notices · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanning treeRiemann surfaceGraphAction (physics)RibbonPlanar graphTransitive relationPlanar straight-line graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sandpile group Pic0(G) of a finite graph G is a discrete analog of the Jacobian of a Riemann surface which was rediscovered several times in the contexts of arithmetic geometry, self-organized criticality, random walks, and algorithms. Given a ribbon graph G, Holroyd et al. used the “rotor-routing” model to define a free and transitive action of Pic0(G) on the set of spanning trees of G. However, their construction depends a priori on a choice of basepoint vertex. Ellenberg asked whether this action does in fact depend on the choice of basepoint. We answer this question by proving that the action of Pic0(G) is independent of the basepoint if and only if G is a planar ribbon graph.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.274 · 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