MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403192865 · doi:10.1112/jlms.13007

The excedance quotient of the Bruhat order, quasisymmetric varieties, and Temperley–Lieb algebras

2024· article· en· W4403192865 on OpenAlexafffund
Nantel Bergeron, Lucas Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the London Mathematical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuotientBruhat orderMathematicsOrder (exchange)Pure mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldWeyl groupBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let be the ring of polynomials in variables and consider the ideal generated by quasisymmetric polynomials without constant term. It was shown by J. C. Aval, F. Bergeron, and N. Bergeron that the th Catalan number. In the present work, we explain this phenomenon by defining a set of permutations with the following properties: first, is a basis of the Temperley–Lieb algebra , and second, when considering as a collection of points in , the top‐degree homogeneous component of the vanishing ideal is . Our construction has a few byproducts that are independently noteworthy. We define an equivalence relation on the symmetric group using weak excedances and show that its equivalence classes are naturally indexed by noncrossing partitions. Each equivalence class is an interval in the Bruhat order between an element of and a 321‐avoiding permutation. Furthermore, the Bruhat order induces a well‐defined order on . Finally, we show that any section of the quotient gives an (often novel) basis for .

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207