MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798961559 · doi:10.4310/joc.2019.v10.n3.a5

Independence posets

2019· article· en· W2798961559 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Thomas, Nathan Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsIndependence (probability theory)CombinatoricsStar productDiscrete mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $G$ be an acylic directed graph. For each vertex $g \in G$, we define an involution on the independent sets of $G$. We call these involutions flips, and use them to define a new partial order on independent sets of $G$. Trim lattices generalize distributive lattices by removing the graded hypothesis: a graded trim lattice is a distributive lattice, and every distributive lattice is trim. Our independence posets are a further generalization of distributive lattices, eliminating also the lattice requirement: an independence poset that is a lattice is always a trim lattice, and every trim lattice is the independence poset for a unique (up to isomorphism) acyclic directed graph $G$. We characterize when an independence poset is a lattice with a graph-theoretic condition on $G$. We generalize the definition of rowmotion from distributive lattices to independence posets, and we show it can be computed in three different ways. We also relate our constructions to torsion classes, semibricks, and 2-simpleminded collections arising in the representation theory of certain acyclic finite-dimensional algebras.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Algebra and LogicFrench-language works237,207