MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173971361 · doi:10.1007/s00029-021-00656-z

The fundamental theorem of finite semidistributive lattices

2019· article· W3173971361 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan Reading, David E Speyer, Hugh Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2019
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDistributive latticeMathematicsPartially ordered setRepresentation theoremHyperplaneDistributivityLattice (music)QuotientDistributive propertyStructured program theoremPure mathematicsFinite setFundamental theoremDiscrete mathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove a Fundamental Theorem of Finite Semidistributive Lattices (FTFSDL), modelled on Birkhoff's Fundamental Theorem of Finite Distributive Lattices. Our FTFSDL is of the form "A poset L is a finite semidistributive lattice if and only if there exists a set Sha with some additional structure, such that L is isomorphic to the admissible subsets of Sha ordered by inclusion; in this case, Sha and its additional structure are uniquely determined by L." The additional structure on Sha is a combinatorial abstraction of the notion of torsion pairs from representation theory and has geometric meaning in the case of posets of regions of hyperplane arrangements. We show how the FTFSDL clarifies many constructions in lattice theory, such as canonical join representations and passing to quotients, and how the semidistributive property interacts with other major classes of lattices. Many of our results also apply to infinite lattices.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAdvanced Algebra and LogicFrench-language works237,207