MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399374800 · doi:10.1142/s0219498825503207

Products and powers of principal symmetric ideals

2024· article· en· W4399374800 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Dannetun, Bruce Fang, Riccardo Formenti, Bo Y. Gao, Juliann Geraci, Ross Kogel, Yuelin Li, Shreya Mandal, Vinuge Rupasinghe, Alexandra Seceleanu, Duc Van Khank Tran, Noah Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Algebra and Its Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCommutative Algebra and Its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsPrincipal (computer security)Pure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Principal symmetric ideals were recently introduced by Harada et al. in [The minimal free resolution of a general principal symmetric ideal, preprint (2023), arXiv:2308.03141], where their homological properties are elucidated. They are ideals generated by the orbit of a single polynomial under permutations of variables in a polynomial ring. In this paper, we determine when a product of two principal symmetric ideals is principal symmetric and when the powers of a principal symmetric ideal are again principal symmetric ideals. We characterize the ideals that have the latter property as being generated by polynomials invariant up to a scalar multiple under permutation of variables. Recognizing principal symmetric ideals is an open question for the purpose of which we produce certain obstructions. We also demonstrate that the Hilbert functions of symmetric monomial ideals are not all given by symmetric monomial ideals, in contrast to the non-symmetric case.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Algebra and Its ApplicationsSame topicCommutative Algebra and Its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207