MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288413698 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.07522

Scaling limits of permutation classes with a finite specification: a dichotomy

2019· preprint· en· W4288413698 on OpenAlexaff
Frédérique Bassino, Mathilde Bouvel, Valentin Féray, Lucas Gerin, Mickaël Maazoun, Adeline Pierrot

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom permutationPermutation (music)MathematicsSeparable spaceLimit (mathematics)Substitution (logic)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsLimitingScaling limitScalingSymmetric groupComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider uniform random permutations in classes having a finite combinatorial specification for the substitution decomposition. These classes include (but are not limited to) all permutation classes with a finite number of simple permutations. Our goal is to study their limiting behavior in the sense of permutons. The limit depends on the structure of the specification restricted to families with the largest growth rate. When it is strongly connected, two cases occur. If the associated system of equations is linear, the limiting permuton is a deterministic $X$-shape. Otherwise, the limiting permuton is the Brownian separable permuton, a random object that already appeared as the limit of most substitution-closed permutation classes, among which the separable permutations. Moreover these results can be combined to study some non strongly connected cases. To prove our result, we use a characterization of the convergence of random permutons by the convergence of random subpermutations. Key steps are the combinatorial study, via substitution trees, of families of permutations with marked elements inducing a given pattern, and the singularity analysis of the corresponding generating functions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207