MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413326508 · doi:10.1016/j.aam.2025.102959

Proof of a K-theoretic polynomial conjecture of Monical, Pechenik, and Searles

2025· article· en· W4413326508 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Pierson

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Applied Mathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsConjecturePolynomialCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a program to develop K -theoretic analogues of combinatorially important polynomials, Monical, Pechenik, and Searles (2021) proved two expansion formulas A ‾ a = ∑ b Q b a ( β ) P ‾ b and Q ‾ a = ∑ b M b a ( β ) F ‾ b , where each of A ‾ a , P ‾ a , Q ‾ a and F ‾ a is a family of polynomials that forms a basis for Z [ x 1 , … , x n ] [ β ] indexed by weak compositions a , and Q b a ( β ) and M b a ( β ) are monomials in β for each pair ( a , b ) of weak compositions. The polynomials A ‾ a are the Lascoux atoms , P ‾ a are the kaons , Q ‾ a are the quasiLascoux polynomials , and F ‾ a are the glide polynomials ; these are respectively the K -analogues of the Demazure atoms A a , the fundamental particles P a , the quasikey polynomials Q a , and the fundamental slide polynomials F a . Monical, Pechenik, and Searles conjecture that for any fixed a , ∑ b Q b a ( − 1 ) , ∑ b M b a ( − 1 ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } , where b ranges over all weak compositions. We prove this conjecture using a sign-reversing involution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Applied MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207