MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292778777 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1804.08164

Variations on a Theme of Schubert Calculus

2018· preprint· en· W4292778777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchubert calculusGrassmannianSchubert polynomialSchubert varietyVariety (cybernetics)Theme (computing)MathematicsAlgebra over a fieldType (biology)Pure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this tutorial, we provide an overview of many of the established combinatorial and algebraic tools of Schubert calculus, the modern area of enumerative geometry that encapsulates a wide variety of topics involving intersections of linear spaces. It is intended as a guide for readers with a combinatorial bent to understand and appreciate the geometric and topological aspects of Schubert calculus, and conversely for geometric-minded readers to gain familiarity with the relevant combinatorial tools in this area. We lead the reader through a tour of three variations on a theme: Grassmannians, flag varieties, and orthogonal Grassmannians. The orthogonal Grassmannian, unlike the ordinary Grassmannian and the flag variety, has not yet been addressed very often in textbooks, so this presentation may be helpful as an introduction to type B Schubert calculus. This work is adapted from the author's lecture notes for a graduate workshop during the Equivariant Combinatorics Workshop at the Center for Mathematics Research, Montreal, June 12-16, 2017.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.105 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207