MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408404591 · doi:10.1515/jgth-2024-0187

Greedy base sizes for sporadic simple groups

2025· article· en· W4408404591 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Coen del Valle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Group Theory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsSimple (philosophy)Base (topology)Greedy algorithmSimple groupCombinatoricsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A base for a permutation group 𝐺 acting on a set Ω is a sequence ℬ of points of Ω such that the pointwise stabiliser <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:msub> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mi mathvariant="script">B</m:mi> </m:msub> </m:math> G_{\mathcal{B}} is trivial. Denote the minimum size of a base for 𝐺 by <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mrow> <m:mi>b</m:mi> <m:mo>⁢</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:math> b(G) . There is a natural greedy algorithm for constructing a base of relatively small size; denote by <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="script">G</m:mi> <m:mo>⁢</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:math> \mathcal{G}(G) the maximum size of a base it produces. Motivated by a long-standing conjecture of Cameron, we determine <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="script">G</m:mi> <m:mo>⁢</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:math> \mathcal{G}(G) for every almost simple primitive group 𝐺 with socle a sporadic simple group, showing that <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <m:mrow> <m:mrow> <m:mi mathvariant="script">G</m:mi> <m:mo>⁢</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mi>b</m:mi> <m:mo>⁢</m:mo> <m:mrow> <m:mo stretchy="false">(</m:mo> <m:mi>G</m:mi> <m:mo stretchy="false">)</m:mo> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:mrow> </m:math> \mathcal{G}(G)=b(G) .

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Group TheorySame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207