Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

MatrixNet: Learning over symmetry groups using learned group representations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MatrixNet learns its own matrix representations of group elements, and the learned relations let it generalize to longer words.

desk verdict Learned group representations are a real idea, but the length-extrapolation claim needs an ablation and a corrected relation before it holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09571 v1 pith:IHY3LLFY submitted 2025-01-16 cs.LG cs.AImath.RT

Lucas Laird , Circe Hsu , Asilata Bapat , Robin Walters This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AImath.RT MSC 68T0720F3620C30
keywords grouprepresentationlearningmatrixexponentialbraidrelationssignedone-hotencodingJordan-Höldermultiplicitiessampleefficiencylengthextrapolation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes an architecture, MatrixNet, that turns group elements into matrices learned from data rather than fixed representation-theoretic ones. It tests this on predicting element order in finite groups and on predicting Jordan-Hölder multiplicities under a braid group action. Across those tasks the learned representations beat or match MLP, LSTM, and Transformer baselines with comparable parameter counts. The paper's strongest claim is that a soft relation loss makes the learned representation respect group relations, so performance holds on braid words longer than any seen in training.

What carries the argument

The matrix block: each generator $g_i$ is encoded by a signed one-hot vector $v_{g_i}$, reshaped to a matrix $A_i$, and exponentiated to $M_{g_i} = \exp(A_i)$, with $M_{g^{-1}} = \exp(-A_i) = M_{g_i}^{-1}$ and $M_1 = I$. A word $g = g_{i_1} \cdots g_{i_\ell}$ is represented by the matrix product $M_g = M_{g_{i_1}} \cdots M_{g_{i_\ell}}$. Because the matrices are invertible by construction, the map is a homomorphism from the free group; a relation-loss term $L_{\text{rel}} = \sum_{r \in R} \|M_r - I\|$ (Frobenius norm) nudges the representation to satisfy the group's relations, and the flattened matrix feeds a task MLP.

What would settle it

Train MatrixNet-LN or MatrixNet-NL on words up to length 7 as described, then evaluate the relation error $\|M_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2} - M_{\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2\sigma_1}\|$ and the MSE on length-12 words. If the relation error grows with word length while the non-relational difference stays bounded, or if the length-12 MSE jumps well above training-level MSE, the claim that relation regularization confers automatic generalization to longer words is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that group elements can be encoded by matrices learned from a presentation of the group, and that these learned representations carry enough algebraic structure to improve both accuracy and length generalization. Concretely, MatrixNet maps each generator to an invertible matrix via a signed one-hot encoding, a reshape, and a matrix exponential; a group element is represented by the product of its generator matrices. Group axioms (identity, inverses) hold by construction, and group relations are encouraged by a regularization term that pushes the matrix of each relation word toward the identity. On the braid group task, the best variants attain mean squared error near 0.001 and about 99.9% accuracy, compared with errors of 0.075 to 2.895 for the baselines; after training on words up to length 7, they keep near-zero MSE on lengths 8 through 10 while baselines degrade sharply.

Load-bearing premise

The auxiliary relation loss is applied only to a finite set of relation words, so the learned matrices must be close enough to an exact homomorphism that small relation errors do not compound over longer unseen words; if they do compound, the length-extrapolation result weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Higher sample efficiency: with roughly equal parameter counts, MatrixNet variants reach accuracy levels that MLP, LSTM, and Transformer baselines do not reach on the braid-group prediction task.
  • Length extrapolation: after training only on braid words up to length 7, MatrixNet-LN and MatrixNet-NL keep near-zero MSE on words of length 8, 9, and 10, showing that relation regularization can replace data augmentation for unseen words.
  • Parameter efficiency: because only generator matrices are learned, the parameter count does not scale with the size of the group, making the method applicable to infinite groups such as the braid group.
  • Flexibility across group structures: the same architecture handles symmetric groups, product groups, abelian groups, and the infinite braid group without task-specific representations.
  • Interpretable learned representations: the learned matrices for equivalent braid words become nearly identical even when the relation was not directly regularized, suggesting the representation captures group structure rather than memorizing words.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The length-extrapolation claim rests on a finite set of relation words in the loss, so a natural stress test is to measure $\|M_w - I\|$ for longer words that are products or conjugates of the braid relation; if the error grows with word length, the automatic-generalization result is limited to the regularized relations.
  • If learned representations can be driven to near-exact homomorphisms, MatrixNet could serve as a computational probe for open questions in representation theory, generating candidate outputs or outliers for mathematicians to verify; the paper stops short of making this claim.
  • The block-diagonal variant suggests a path toward incorporating known irreducible structure while still learning the specific representation, which could be extended to continuous groups by replacing the matrix exponential with a Lie-algebra generator formulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central discovery is that group elements can be encoded by matrices learned from a presentation of the group, and that these learned representations carry enough algebraic structure to improve both accuracy and length generalization. Concretely, MatrixNet maps each generator to an invertible matrix via a signed one-hot encoding, a reshape, and a matrix exponential; a group element is represent

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MatrixNet, a neural architecture that learns matrix representations of group generators from sequences, with the product of generator matrices representing a group element. The matrix block uses a matrix exponential so that the map from the free group to GL(n) is a homomorphism by construction, while group relations are encouraged through an auxiliary loss that penalizes deviation of relation words from the identity. The authors evaluate MatrixNet on order prediction in finite symmetric and product groups and on Jordan-Hölder multiplicity prediction for the braid group B3, reporting that the best variants outperform MLP, LSTM, and Transformer baselines and maintain near-zero error on braid words of length 8-10 after training only on words up to length 7. The central claim is that learned matrix representations, aided by relation regularization, generalize to group elements of greater word length than seen in training.

Significance. If the central claim holds, MatrixNet offers a parameter-efficient and interpretable way to learn functions on discrete groups with a learned representation, and the connection to an open problem in categorical braid group actions is a compelling application. The paper has several concrete strengths: Propositions 1 and 2 correctly establish that the matrix block defines a free-group representation; the code is released; the experiments compare against multiple baselines; and Table 4 provides a diagnostic (relational error) that is correlated with extrapolation performance. However, the headline length-extrapolation claim is supported only by a soft, finite-set regularization loss with no ablation, no error-propagation analysis, and no control for test words that reduce to shorter words. The significance is therefore conditional on additional experiments that directly test the causal role of relation regularization.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 2] The causal claim that relation regularization is what enables length extrapolation is not established, because no ablation removes the auxiliary relation loss L_rel. The near-zero MSE of MatrixNet-LN and MatrixNet-NL on words of length 8-10 could in principle arise from the free-group matrix product structure and the MLP's interpolation, rather than from learned relations. Please report the same extrapolation experiment for models trained with the relation-loss weight set to zero, and show whether relational error and extrapolation MSE degrade.
  2. [§4.3, Appendix B.2, Table 4] L_rel penalizes only a finite set of relation words, yet the extrapolation claim requires the approximate homomorphism property to hold for all words of length 8-10. The paper reports relational error of about 0.066-0.071 for the best variants, and the Limitations section states that the homomorphism property is not exact, but no analysis is given of how this residual error compounds with word length or how it translates into MSE on the length-8, length-9, and length-10 test sets. Please measure relational error directly on those test words, e.g., the Frobenius norm of M_w1 - M_w2 for equivalent words of each test length, and provide a bound or empirical error-propagation analysis.
  3. [§5.2, Length Extrapolation Results] The length extrapolation experiment does not report the fraction of test words of length 8-10 that reduce, via the braid relation, to group elements representable by words of length at most 7. If a large fraction of these test words are equivalent to shorter words already seen in training, the result would be partly explained by invariance to known relations rather than by genuine composition of longer words. Please report the distribution of minimal word lengths for the test sets, and show results separately for words that are irreducible to length at most 7.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B.2] The regularization details state that the braid relation used is "σ1σ2σ2 = σ2σ1σ2", which appears to be a typo; the correct braid relation is σ1σ2σ1 = σ2σ1σ2, and the inverse relation should be σ1^{-1}σ2^{-1}σ1^{-1} = σ2^{-1}σ1^{-1}σ2^{-1}. Please correct this.
  2. [§5.3] The sentence "Figure 2 shows visual plots of the learned representations" appears to refer to Figure 3, since Figure 2 contains the length extrapolation plots.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase "over the several finite groups" should be "over several finite groups".
  4. [§3.1] The presentation of D4 as "r4 = f2 = f rf r" is incomplete or ambiguous; it should be written with relations such as r^4 = f^2 = (fr)^2 = 1.
  5. [§5.1] The model name "MatrixNet-Nonlinear" in Table 1 is inconsistent with the name "MatrixNet-NL" used elsewhere.
  6. [Appendix B.2] The regularization loss weight is not reported; the paper only states that the term is added every 10 training batches. Please specify the weight and whether it is constant or scheduled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: length extrapolation is an empirical effect of a jointly trained regularizer, not a quantity fixed by construction.

full rationale

MatrixNet's derivation chain is self-contained. The matrix block is defined so that M_g is a product of generator matrix exponentials, making the free-group identity and inverse properties algebraic consequences (Propositions 1-2); this is not derived from labels or from the relation loss. The group-relation invariance behind the abstract claim is imposed through an explicit auxiliary loss L_rel (Sec. 4.3) and trained jointly with the supervised MSE. The length-extrapolation experiment (Sec. 5.2, Fig. 2) measures held-out words of lengths 8-10 that were not used to fit L_rel or the classifier, so the near-zero MSE is an empirical result rather than a renaming of the training objective. Table 4's relational error is a diagnostic of the regularizer, but the extrapolation MSE and accuracy are separate response variables; the paper uses the correlation as a mechanistic explanation, not as a tautology. The Limitations section's admission that 'the homomorphism property is not exact' weakens the strength of the claim but does not make it circular. Self-citations to [44,47] supply the mathematical problem setting and the data-generation automaton, yet the B3 ground truth is independently available from Rouquier-Zimmermann [46], and the architecture's free-group behavior is proven in-paper rather than imported. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the matrix exponential construction, a domain assumption about finite presentations, and the correctness of mathematical background used to generate labels. The free parameters are the model sizes and the implicitly tuned relation regularization strength. No new physical or mathematical entity is postulated beyond the learned matrix representation itself.

free parameters (4)
  • learned matrix dimension n = 10, 12, 20, 14, 8, etc. per model variant
    The size of the learned matrices is chosen by hand per experiment and controls representational capacity. No sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • matrix block hidden dimensions in LN and NL variants = 128
    Chosen for approximate parameter parity with baselines; no ablation is shown.
  • relation loss weight and schedule = not stated
    The relation regularization is added every 10 batches, but its scaling relative to the task loss is unspecified, so the effective strength of the learned group relations is a hidden tuned quantity.
  • representation block count for MatrixNet-MC = 3 channels for braid task, 5 channels for S10
    The block diagonal structure and number of channels are handpicked and not justified by an ablation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The group admits a finite presentation with known generators and relations.
    MatrixNet encodes inputs as generator words and applies the relation loss to a finite set R. Section 4.1 assumes G = <S | R>; the Limitations section notes this restricts the method to discrete finitely presented groups.
  • standard math Standard properties of the matrix exponential: invertibility and exp(-A) = exp(A)^-1.
    Proposition 1 relies on these facts to prove that the matrix block defines a free group homomorphism.
  • domain assumption Seidel-Thomas spherical twist functors satisfy the braid relations.
    The braid action dataset is built on the theorem cited as [45] in Appendix A.4. The experimental task inherits this mathematical result.
  • standard math Jordan-Holder multiplicities are well-defined and independent of the particular filtration.
    Appendix A.3 relies on the standard uniqueness of Jordan-Holder filtration factors in a finite-length abelian category.
  • domain assumption The state automaton algorithm from [47] correctly computes Jordan-Holder multiplicities for the generated dataset.
    Dataset generation in Appendix B.2 uses this external algorithm and is only checked against an initial dataset. A bug or misinterpretation in the algorithm would propagate into the labels.
invented entities (1)
  • Learned matrix representation of the group
    purpose: Encodes each group element as an invertible matrix that is fed to a task MLP; the representation is trained to respect group multiplication and relations.
    A new parameterized entity, but it is not an independently observable object. It exists only as weights inside the model and is evaluated through downstream task performance, not through a prediction that could falsify it outside the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MatrixNet: Learning over symmetry groups using learned group representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHY3LLFY

@misc{pith2026250109571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MatrixNet: Learning over symmetry groups using learned group representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHY3LLFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09571}
}
read the original abstract

Group theory has been used in machine learning to provide a theoretically grounded approach for incorporating known symmetry transformations in tasks from robotics to protein modeling. In these applications, equivariant neural networks use known symmetry groups with predefined representations to learn over geometric input data. We propose MatrixNet, a neural network architecture that learns matrix representations of group element inputs instead of using predefined representations. MatrixNet achieves higher sample efficiency and generalization over several standard baselines in prediction tasks over the several finite groups and the Artin braid group. We also show that MatrixNet respects group relations allowing generalization to group elements of greater word length than in the training set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of MatrixNet for predicting order of elements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Length extrapolation results. Left: The plot shows how MSE grows for increasing word [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of learned matrix representations. The first two figures show the representa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Dynkin graph of type An. Let Γn be the Dynkin graph of type An. Let Γ dbl n be its doubled quiver, which is a directed graph in which each undirected edge of Γ is replaced by a pair of oppositely oriented directed edges, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The doubled quiver Γ dbl n of the Dynkin graph of type An. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs

    Joan Bruna, Wojciech Zaremba, Arthur Szlam, and Yann LeCun. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6203, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    SO(2)-equivariant reinforcement learning

    Dian Wang, Robin Walters, and Robert Platt. SO(2)-equivariant reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04439, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Solving the rubik’s cube with deep reinforcement learning and search

    Forest Agostinelli, Stephen McAleer, Alexander Shmakov, and Pierre Baldi. Solving the rubik’s cube with deep reinforcement learning and search. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(8):356–363, 07 2019. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0070-z

    doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0070-z 2019

  7. [7]

    Implicit- pdf: Non-parametric representation of probability distributions on the rotation manifold

    Kieran Murphy, Carlos Esteves, Varun Jampani, Srikumar Ramalingam, and Ameesh Makadia. Implicit- pdf: Non-parametric representation of probability distributions on the rotation manifold. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05965, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Sampling using su (n) gauge equivariant flows

    Denis Boyda, Gurtej Kanwar, Sébastien Racanière, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Michael S Albergo, Kyle Cranmer, Daniel C Hackett, and Phiala E Shanahan. Sampling using su (n) gauge equivariant flows. Physical Review D, 103(7):074504, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Fourier theoretic probabilistic inference over permutations

    Jonathan Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and Leonidas Guibas. Fourier theoretic probabilistic inference over permutations. Journal of machine learning research, 10(5), 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Explorations in homeomorphic variational auto-encoding

    Luca Falorsi, Pim De Haan, Tim R Davidson, Nicola De Cao, Maurice Weiler, Patrick Forré, and Taco S Cohen. Explorations in homeomorphic variational auto-encoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.04689, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On the continuity of rotation represen- tations in neural networks

    Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Jingwan Lu, Jimei Yang, and Hao Li. On the continuity of rotation represen- tations in neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5745–5753, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Deep regression on manifolds: a 3d rotation case study

    Romain Brégier. Deep regression on manifolds: a 3d rotation case study. In 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 166–174. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Learning with 3d rotations, a hitchhiker’s guide to so (3)

    A René Geist, Jonas Frey, Mikel Zobro, Anna Levina, and Georg Martius. Learning with 3d rotations, a hitchhiker’s guide to so (3). arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11735, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Checkelsky, and Tess Smidt

    Shiang Fang, Mario Geiger, Joseph G. Checkelsky, and Tess Smidt. Phonon predictions with e(3)- equivariant graph neural networks, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Differentiable mathematical programming for object- centric representation learning

    Adeel Pervez, Phillip Lippe, and Efstratios Gavves. Differentiable mathematical programming for object- centric representation learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1J-ZTr7aypY

    2023

  8. [16]

    Mechanistic neural networks for scientific machine learning

    Adeel Pervez, Francesco Locatello, and Stratis Gavves. Mechanistic neural networks for scientific machine learning. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st In...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Veliˇckovi´c

    Michael M. Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Taco Cohen, and Petar Veliˇckovi´c. Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Group equivariant convolutional networks

    Taco Cohen and Max Welling. Group equivariant convolutional networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2990–2999. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    On the generalization of equivariance and convolution in neural networks to the action of compact groups

    Risi Kondor and Shubhendu Trivedi. On the generalization of equivariance and convolution in neural networks to the action of compact groups. In International conference on machine learning , pages 2747–2755. PMLR, 2018. 11

    2018

  12. [20]

    Tensor field networks: Rotation-and translation-equivariant neural networks for 3d point clouds

    Nathaniel Thomas, Tess Smidt, Steven Kearnes, Lusann Yang, Li Li, Kai Kohlhoff, and Patrick Riley. Tensor field networks: Rotation-and translation-equivariant neural networks for 3d point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08219, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Equivariant adaptation of large pretrained models

    Arnab Kumar Mondal, Siba Smarak Panigrahi, Oumar Kaba, Sai Rajeswar Mudumba, and Siamak Ravanbakhsh. Equivariant adaptation of large pretrained models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics

    Albert Musaelian, Simon Batzner, Anders Johansson, Lixin Sun, Cameron J Owen, Mordechai Kornbluth, and Boris Kozinsky. Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics. Nature Communications, 14(1):579, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Numerical calabi-yau metrics from holomorphic networks

    Michael Douglas, Subramanian Lakshminarasimhan, and Yidi Qi. Numerical calabi-yau metrics from holomorphic networks. In Mathematical and Scientific Machine Learning, pages 223–252. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Equivariant descriptor fields: Se(3)- equivariant energy-based models for end-to-end visual robotic manipulation learning, 2023

    Hyunwoo Ryu, Hong in Lee, Jeong-Hoon Lee, and Jongeun Choi. Equivariant descriptor fields: Se(3)- equivariant energy-based models for end-to-end visual robotic manipulation learning, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Contrastive learning of structured world models

    Thomas Kipf, Elise van der Pol, and Max Welling. Contrastive learning of structured world models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations

    Quentin Garrido, Laurent Najman, and Yann Lecun. Self-supervised learning of split invariant equivariant representations. In The Fortieth International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Equivariant self-supervised learning: Encouraging equivariance in represen- tations

    Rumen Dangovski, Li Jing, Charlotte Loh, Seungwook Han, Akash Srivastava, Brian Cheung, Pulkit Agrawal, and Marin Soljaˇci´c. Equivariant self-supervised learning: Encouraging equivariance in represen- tations. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Learning disentangled representations and group structure of dynamical environments

    Robin Quessard, Thomas Barrett, and William Clements. Learning disentangled representations and group structure of dynamical environments. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33: 19727–19737, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Learning symmetric embeddings for equivariant world models

    Jung Yeon Park, Ondrej Biza, Linfeng Zhao, Jan Willem van de Meent, and Robin Walters. Learning symmetric embeddings for equivariant world models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Automatic symmetry discovery with lie algebra convolutional network

    Nima Dehmamy, Robin Walters, Yanchen Liu, Dashun Wang, and Rose Yu. Automatic symmetry discovery with lie algebra convolutional network. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Alex Gabel, Victoria Klein, Riccardo Valperga, Jeroen S. W. Lamb, Kevin Webster, Rick Quax, and Efstratios Gavves. Learning lie group symmetry transformations with neural networks. In Timothy Doster, Tegan Emerson, Henry Kvinge, Nina Miolane, Mathilde Papillon, Bastian Rieck, ...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Latent space symmetry discovery

    Jianke Yang, Nima Dehmamy, Robin Walters, and Rose Yu. Latent space symmetry discovery. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp, editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Ma...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Algebraically-informed deep networks (aidn): A deep learning approach to represent algebraic structures, 2021

    Mustafa Hajij, Ghada Zamzmi, Matthew Dawson, and Greg Muller. Algebraically-informed deep networks (aidn): A deep learning approach to represent algebraic structures, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models, 2023

    Shima Imani, Liang Du, and Harsh Shrivastava. Mathprompter: Mathematical reasoning using large language models, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V

    Trieu H. Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V . Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations. Nature, 625(7995):476–482, Jan 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Physics informed deep learning (part i): Data-driven solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations, 2017

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics informed deep learning (part i): Data-driven solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    ForecastNet: A Time-Variant Deep Feed- Forward Neural Network Architecture for Multi-step-Ahead Time-Series Forecasting , page 579–591

    Joel Janek Dabrowski, YiFan Zhang, and Ashfaqur Rahman. ForecastNet: A Time-Variant Deep Feed- Forward Neural Network Architecture for Multi-step-Ahead Time-Series Forecasting , page 579–591. Springer International Publishing, 2020. ISBN 9783030638368. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-6...

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators, 2022

    Jaideep Pathak, Shashank Subramanian, Peter Harrington, Sanjeev Raja, Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Morteza Mardani, Thorsten Kurth, David Hall, Zongyi Li, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Pedram Hassanzadeh, Karthik Kashinath, and Animashree Anandkumar. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with ai

    Alex Davies, Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Lars Buesing, Sam Blackwell, Daniel Zheng, Nenad Tomašev, Richard Tanburn, Peter Battaglia, Charles Blundell, András Juhász, and et al. Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with ai. Nature, 600(7887):70–74, Dec 2021. doi: 10.1038/s4...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Michael Artin. Algebra. Prentice Hall, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Ueber den arithmetischen charakter der coefficienten der substitutionen endlicher linearer substitutionsgruppen

    Heinrich Maschke. Ueber den arithmetischen charakter der coefficienten der substitutionen endlicher linearer substitutionsgruppen. Mathematische Annalen, 50(4):492–498, 1898

  34. [42]

    Introduction to representations of braid groups

    Camilo Arias Abad. Introduction to representations of braid groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0724, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Representation theory: a first course, volume 129

    William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation theory: a first course, volume 129. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Asilata Bapat, Anand Deopurkar, and Anthony M. Licata. A Thurston compactification of the space of stability conditions. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07908

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves

    Paul Seidel and Richard Thomas. Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves. Duke Math. J., 108(1):37–108, 2001. ISSN 0012-7094. doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-01-10812-0

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    Picard groups for derived module categories

    Raphaël Rouquier and Alexander Zimmermann. Picard groups for derived module categories. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 87(1):197–225, 2003. ISSN 0024-6115. doi: 10.1112/S0024611503014059

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    Asilata Bapat, Louis Becker, and Anthony M. Licata. q-deformed rational numbers and the 2-calabi–yau category of type. Forum of Mathematics, Sigma, 11, 2023. ISSN 2050-5094. doi: 10.1017/fms.2023.32. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/fms.2023.32

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Quivers, Floer cohomology, and braid group actions

    Mikhail Khovanov and Paul Seidel. Quivers, Floer cohomology, and braid group actions. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 15(1):203–271, 2002. ISSN 0894-0347. doi: 10.1090/S0894-0347-01-00374-5

    2002 doi

  41. [49]

    Humphreys

    James E. Humphreys. Reflection groups and Coxeter groups. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  42. [50]

    Smith, Mateusz Paprocki, Ondˇrej ˇCertík, Sergey B

    Aaron Meurer, Christopher P. Smith, Mateusz Paprocki, Ondˇrej ˇCertík, Sergey B. Kirpichev, Matthew Rocklin, AMiT Kumar, Sergiu Ivanov, Jason K. Moore, Sartaj Singh, Thilina Rathnayake, Sean Vig, Brian E. Granger, Richard P. Muller, Francesco Bonazzi, Harsh Gupta, Shivam Vats,...

    2017

  43. [51]

    Generalise the Rouquier–Zimmermann theorem (and its corresponding versions in [ 44] and [47]) to larger values of n

  44. [52]

    That is, record the number of occurrences of Pi[d] separately for every possible d

    We can compute a finer version of Jordan–Hölder multiplicities: split up the number of occurrences of each Pi by degree shift. That is, record the number of occurrences of Pi[d] separately for every possible d. This information can be encoded in a polynomial in one variable in...

  45. [53]

    This constraint can be explicitly described for any Bn via a geometric model (due to Khovanov–Seidel [48]) for objects in the category Cn

    By using a more refined version of Jordan–Hölder multiplicities, known as Harder– Narasimhan multiplicities, we observe that the possible Harder–Narasimhan factors of any object of the form β(Pi) are highly constrained, and satisfy some very nice combinato- rial properties. Th...

  46. [54]

    Can we use the combinatorial structure mentioned above to algorithmically write down combinatorial actions of braid groups on simpler sets? What properties do these actions satisfy?

  47. [55]

    All of the questions above remain open for all but the simplest cases of Artin–Tits groups

    All of the categorical constructions described in this paper also go through for more general versions of braid groups, known as Artin–Tits braid groups. All of the questions above remain open for all but the simplest cases of Artin–Tits groups. B Dataset and Model Parameter D...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.