MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198911816 · doi:10.5070/c63261992

Homomesy via toggleability statistics

2023· article· en· W3198911816 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Colin Defant, Sam Hopkins, Svetlana Poznanović, James Propp

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorial Theory · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPiecewise linear functionMathematicsLift (data mining)PiecewiseSet (abstract data type)Operator (biology)Constant (computer programming)Partially ordered setStatisticsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rowmotion operator acting on the set of order ideals of a finite poset has been the focus of a significant amount of recent research. One of the major goals has been to exhibit homomesies: statistics that have the same average along every orbit of the action. We systematize a technique for proving that various statistics of interest are homomesic by writing these statistics as linear combinations of "toggleability statistics" (originally introduced by Striker) plus a constant. We show that this technique recaptures most of the known homomesies for the posets on which rowmotion has been most studied. We also show that the technique continues to work in modified contexts. For instance, this technique also yields homomesies for the piecewise-linear and birational extensions of rowmotion; furthermore, we introduce a \(q\)-analogue of rowmotion and show that the technique yields homomesies for "\(q\)-rowmotion" as well.Mathematics Subject Classifications: 06A07, 05E18, 05A30, 52B05Keywords: Homomesy, rowmotion, toggling, piecewise-linear & birational lift, \(q\)-analogue

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombinatorial TheorySame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207