MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113016580 · doi:10.1112/s1461157014000400

Computing symmetry groups of polyhedra

2014· article· en· W2113016580 on OpenAlexaff
David Avis, Mathieu Dutour Sikirić, Dmitrii V. Ṗasechnik, Thomas Rehn

Bibliographic record

VenueLMS Journal of Computation and Mathematics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaHausdorff Research Institute for MathematicsMathematisches Forschungsinstitut OberwolfachUniversity of CambridgeAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsPolyhedronMathematicsInteger points in convex polyhedraSymmetry groupComputationSymmetry (geometry)Automorphism groupHomogeneous spaceLinear programmingPolyhedral combinatoricsGroup (periodic table)Integer programmingCombinatoricsTetrahedral symmetryDiscrete mathematicsAutomorphismAlgorithmRegular polygonRotational symmetryGeometryBranch and priceConvex set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Knowing the symmetries of a polyhedron can be very useful for the analysis of its structure as well as for practical polyhedral computations. In this note, we study symmetry groups preserving the linear, projective and combinatorial structure of a polyhedron. In each case we give algorithmic methods to compute the corresponding group and discuss some practical experiences. For practical purposes the linear symmetry group is the most important, as its computation can be directly translated into a graph automorphism problem. We indicate how to compute integral subgroups of the linear symmetry group that are used, for instance, in integer linear programming.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLMS Journal of Computation and MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207