MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414152099 · doi:10.3934/era.2025240

Observations on Abelian sandpile models for directed graphs

2025· article· en· W4414152099 on OpenAlexaff
Amena Assem, Hanna Derets, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Research Archive · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbelian sandpile modelAbelian groupCommutative propertyAssociative propertyMathematical proofAperiodic graphAlgebraic structureHomomorphic encryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We relate various characterizations of sandpile dynamics arising in the literature referred to as 'Abelian sandpile models', and we rigorously establish the sense in which they are commutative and associative as algebraic structures. In particular, associativity is approached from different perspectives: directly for the addition of configurations followed by stabilization; as a property of homomorphic images of semigroups; via the composition of operators on configurations; and, more generally, from an asynchronous perspective. We show how the existing formulations all arise within a common framework as substructures or homomorphic images of a non-commutative semigroup of operators. The appendix gives results on the algebraic complexity of sandpile semigroups, with 1) two different proofs determining the Krohn–Rhodes complexity of the finite Abelian sandpile models and all finite Abelian semigroups, 2) exact values of the aperiodic complexity measure for directed non-Abelian sandpile semigroups, and 3) exhibits new kinds of non-Abelian sandpile semigroups of higher Krohn–Rhodes complexity.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.334
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 venueElectronic Research ArchiveSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207