MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402927806 · doi:10.5070/c64264253

Permutoric promotion: gliding globs, sliding stones, and colliding coins

2024· article· en· W4402927806 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Colin Defant, Rachana Madhukara, Hugh Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorial Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defant recently introduced toric promotion, an operator that acts on the labelings of a graph \(G\) and serves as a cyclic analogue of Schützenberger's promotion operator. Toric promotion is defined as the composition of certain toggle operators, listed in a natural cyclic order. We consider more general permutoric promotion operators, which are defined as compositions of the same toggles, but in permuted orders. We settle a conjecture of Defant by determining the orders of all permutoric promotion operators when \(G\) is a path graph. In fact, we completely characterize the orbit structures of these operators, showing that they satisfy the cyclic sieving phenomenon. The first half of our proof requires us to introduce and analyze new broken promotion operators, which can be interpreted via globs of liquid gliding on a path graph. For the latter half of our proof, we reformulate the dynamics of permutoric promotion via stones sliding along a cycle graph and coins colliding with each other on a path graph.Mathematics Subject Classifications: 05E18Keywords: Promotion, toric promotion, Coxeter element, cyclic sieving phenomenon

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 venueCombinatorial TheorySame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207