MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950117051 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.math/0303312

Annular non-crossing permutations and partitions, and second-order asymptotics for random matrices

2003· preprint· en· W2950117051 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Mingo, Alexandru Nica

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsGeodesicPermutation (music)Annulus (botany)Order (exchange)Algebraic numberPoint (geometry)GeometryMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the set $S_{ann-nc}$ of permutations of $\{1, ..., p+q \}$ which are non-crossing in an annulus with $p$ points marked on its external circle and $q$ points marked on its internal circle. The algebraic approach to $S_{ann-nc}$ goes by identifying three possible crossing patterns in an annulus, and by defining a permutation to be annular non-crossing when it does not display any of these patterns. We prove the annular counterpart for a ``geodesic condition'' shown by Biane to characterize non-crossing permutations in a disc. We point out that, as a consequence, annular non-crossing permutations appear in the description of the second order asymptotics for the joint moments of certain families (Wishart and GUE) of random matrices. We examine the relation between $S_{ann-nc}$ and the set $NC_{ann}$ of annular non-crossing partitions of $\{1, ..., p+q \}$, and observe that (unlike in the disc case) the natural map from $S_{ann-nc}$ onto $NC_{ann}$ has a pathology which prevents it from being injective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207