MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174325142 · doi:10.1142/s179352532350005x

Systolic inequalities for the number of vertices

2023· article· en· W3174325142 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey Avvakumov, Alexey Balitskiy, Alfredo Hubard, Роман Карасев

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Topology and Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFP7 Ideas: European Research CouncilEuropean CommissionRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsMathematical proofUpper and lower boundsCorollaryPath (computing)CombinatoricsIdeal (ethics)InequalityIsoperimetric inequalityPure mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by the classical Riemannian systolic inequality of Gromov, we present a combinatorial analogue providing a lower bound on the number of vertices of a simplicial complex in terms of its edge-path systole. Similarly to the Riemannian case, where the inequality holds under a topological assumption of “essentiality”, our proofs rely on a combinatorial analogue of that assumption. Under a stronger assumption, expressed in terms of cohomology cup-length, we improve our results quantitatively. We also illustrate our methods in the continuous setting, generalizing and improving quantitatively the Minkowski principle of Balacheff and Karam; a corollary of this result is the extension of the Guth–Nakamura cup-length systolic bound from manifolds to complexes.

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)0.011
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Topology and AnalysisSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207