Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A coset partition of a group G is a set partition of G into finitely many left cosets of one or more subgroups. A driving force in this research area is the Herzog–Schönheim Conjecture [15], which states that any nontrivial coset partition of a group contains at least two cosets with the same index. Although many families of groups have been shown to satisfy the conjecture, it remains open. A Steiner coset partition of G , with respect to distinct subgroups $H_1,\dots ,H_r$ , is a coset partition of G that contains exactly one coset of each $H_i$ . In the quest of a more structural version of the Herzog–Schönheim Conjecture, it was shown that there is no Steiner coset partition of G with respect to any $r\geq 2$ subgroups $H_i$ that mutually commute [1]. In this article, we show that this result holds for $r=4$ mutually commuting subgroups provided that G does not have $C_2\times C_2\times C_2$ as a quotient, where $C_2$ is the cyclic group of order $2$ . We further give an explicit construction of Steiner coset partitions of the n -fold direct product $G^*=C_p\times \ldots \times C_p$ for p prime and $n\geq 3$ . This construction lifts to every group extension of $G^*$ .
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".