MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411054266 · doi:10.37236/12681

A Combinatorial Proof of a Symmetry for a Refinement of the Narayana Numbers

2025· article· en· W4411054266 on OpenAlexaff
Miklós Bóna, S. I. Dimitrov, Gilbert Labelle, Yifei Li, Joseph Pappe, Andrés R. Vindas-Meléndez, Yan Zhuang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSymmetry (geometry)MathematicsCombinatorial proofCombinatoricsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We establish a tantalizing symmetry of certain numbers refining the Narayana numbers. In terms of Dyck paths, this symmetry is interpreted in the following way: if $w_{n,k,m}$ is the number of Dyck paths of semilength $n$ with $k$ occurrences of $UD$ and $m$ occurrences of $UUD$, then $w_{2k+1,k,m}=w_{2k+1,k,k+1-m}$. We give a combinatorial proof of this fact, relying on the cycle lemma, and showing that the numbers $w_{2k+1,k,m}$ are multiples of the Narayana numbers. We prove a more general fact establishing a relationship between the numbers $w_{n,k,m}$ and a family of generalized Narayana numbers due to Callan. A closed-form expression for the even more general numbers $w_{n,k_{1},k_{2},\ldots, k_{r}}$ counting the semilength-$n$ Dyck paths with $k_{1}$ $UD$-factors, $k_{2}$ $UUD$-factors, $\ldots$, and $k_{r}$ $U^{r}D$-factors is also obtained, as well as a more general form of the discussed symmetry for these numbers in the case when all rise runs are of certain minimal length. Finally, we investigate properties of the polynomials $W_{n,k}(t)= \sum_{m=0}^k w_{n,k,m} t^m$, including real-rootedness, $\gamma$-positivity, and a symmetric decomposition.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207