MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071869249 · doi:10.1080/00927870902766308

Enumerating Groups Acting Regularly on a <i>d</i> -Dimensional Cube

2009· article· en· W2071869249 on OpenAlexafffund
Pablo Spiga

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Algebra · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersPacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsCube (algebra)Isomorphism (crystallography)Order (exchange)Class (philosophy)Group (periodic table)Computer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the survey article [2 Li , C. H. ( 2002 ). On isomorphisms of finite Cayley graphs – a survey . Discrete Mathematics 256 ( 1–2 ): 301 – 334 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]] it was noted, among many other open problems, that the classification of the groups acting regularly on a d-dimensional cube Γ is unsettled. In other words, the classification of the finite groups G such that Cay(G, S) ≅ Γ, for some subset S of G, is still unknown. In this article, we prove that there are at least 2 d 2/64 − (d/2)log2(d/2) nonisomorphic 2-groups of Frattini class 2 acting regularly on a d-dimensional cube. Other relevant results are presented. As a corollary of our result, we remark that the symmetric group Sym(n) on n symbols contains at least 2 n 2/256 − (n/4)log2(n/4) subgroups up to isomorphism. In particular, we recall that in [4 Pyber , L. ( 1993 ). Enumeranting finite groups of given order . Ann. Math. 137 ( 2 ): 203 – 220 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]] it was proved that the total number of subgroups of Sym(n) is at most 2 cn 2 , for c = log224.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in AlgebraSame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207