MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410632580 · doi:10.22215/etd/2025-16456

Topics in the Generation of Ideals of Posets

2025· dissertation· en· W4410632580 on OpenAlexaff
Mackenzie William Powers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the generation of the fixed ideals of finite partial orders with particular attention in finding Gray codes for their generation. Pruesse and Ruskey conjecture that the graph J(P,k), which contains as vertices the k-ideals of the poset P, with an edge between vertices that differ by a swap, has a Hamiltonian path. The conjecture is true for series-parallel posets and interval orders. We prove the conjecture also holds for the fence posets, but that the conjecture is false for the 3-ideals of the crown poset with six elements. We also provide an infinite family of posets for which the conjecture does not hold. We study the Whitney numbers of fence posets to show a different but related conjecture of Pruesse and Ruskey also holds for fences and crowns with a small number of exceptions. We study Hamiltonian cycles in the Johnson graph (n,k) with certain properties about adjacent elements which we name t-full Hamiltonian cycles. We show their connection to the recently proved Middle Levels Theorem and how to construct them. We use t-full Hamiltonian cycles to show that, for k <= n-2 the graph J(Cr(2n), k) has a Hamiltonian cycle. We also apply 2-full Hamiltonian cycles to show that (P,3) has a Hamiltonian path for any height two poset P. Further, we introduce t-full Hamiltonian connected paths, and show that 1-full Hamiltonian connected paths exist in J(n,k). We introduce a weaker version of t-full Hamiltonian paths called pair-adjacent paths, and give algorithms for their construction. We show how these algorithms can generate the 3-ideals for crown posets with more than 6 elements. Finally, we study two applications of the generation of fixed-sized ideals. We formulate the information set decoding method in terms of error-correcting codes with a poset metric, and show how the probability of success in the guessing phase of such algorithms is minimized for anti-chain posets. We generalize ordered covering arrays (OCA) for general posets, and give elementary constructions of OCAs for level-regular rooted tree posets.

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)0.000
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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Algebra and LogicFrench-language works237,207