MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379185352 · doi:10.37236/11281

Generalized Riemann Functions, Their Weights, and the Complete Graph

2023· article· en· W4379185352 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Folinsbee, Joel Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsRiemann hypothesisCombinatoricsRank (graph theory)Weight functionGraphFunction (biology)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By a Riemann function we mean a function $f:\mathbb{Z}^n\to\mathbb{Z}$ such that $f(\mathbf{d})$ is equals $0$ for $d_1+\cdots+d_n$ sufficiently small, and equals $d_1+\cdots+d_n+C$ for a constant, $C$, for $d_1+\cdots+d_n$ sufficiently large. By adding $1$ to the Baker-Norine rank function of a graph, one gets an equivalent Riemann function, and similarly for related rank functions.
 To each Riemann function we associate a related function $W: \mathbb{Z}^n\to \mathbb{Z}$ via Möbius inversion that we call the weight of the Riemann function. We give evidence that the weight seems to organize the structure of a Riemann function in a simpler way: first, a Riemann function $f$ satisfies a Riemann-Roch formula iff its weight satisfies a simpler symmetry condition. Second, we will calculate the weight of the Baker-Norine rank for certain graphs and show that the weight function is quite simple to describe; we do this for graphs on two vertices and for complete graphs.
 For complete graphs, we build on the work of Cori and Le Borgne who gave a linear time method to compute the Baker-Norine rank of the complete graph. The associated weight function has a simple formula and is extremely sparse (i.e., mostly zero). Our computation of the weight function leads to a new linear time algorithm to compute the Baker-Norine rank, via a new formula likely related to one of Cori and Le Borgne, but seemingly simpler for general $\mathbf{d}\in \mathbb{Z}^n$, namely$$r_{{\rm BN},K_n}(\mathbf{d}) =-1+\biggl| \biggl\{ i=0,\ldots,\deg(\mathbf{d}) \ \Bigm|\ \sum_{j=1}^{n-2} \bigl( (d_j-d_{n-1}+i) \bmod n \bigr) \le \deg(\mathbf{d})-i\biggr\} \biggr|.$$However, the formula of Cori and Le Borgne, which requires $\mathbf{d}\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ to be a sorted parking function, is easier to evaluate for such $\mathbf{d}$.
 Our study of weight functions leads to a natural generalization of Riemann functions, with many of the same properties exhibited by Riemann 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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207