MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413319188 · doi:10.1063/5.0211719

Rado matroids and a graphical calculus for boundaries of Wilson loop diagrams

2025· article· en· W4413319188 on OpenAlexafffund
Susama Agarwala, Colleen Delaney, Karen Yeats

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Security AgencySimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMatroidLoop (graph theory)Wilson loopMathematicsCalculus (dental)Algebra over a fieldCombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematical physicsGauge theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the boundaries of the positroid cells which arise from N=4 super Yang–Mills theory. Our main tool is a new diagrammatic object which generalizes the Wilson loop diagrams used to represent interactions in the theory. We prove conditions under which these new generalized Wilson loop diagrams correspond to positroids and give an explicit algorithm to calculate the Grassmann necklace of said positroids. Then we develop a graphical calculus operating directly on noncrossing generalized Wilson loop diagrams. In this paradigm, applying diagrammatic moves to a generalized Wilson loop diagram results in new diagrams that represent boundaries of its associated positroid, without passing through cryptomorphisms. We provide a Python implementation of the graphical calculus and use it to show that the boundaries of positroids associated to ordinary Wilson loop diagram are generated by our diagrammatic moves in certain cases.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207