BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Sean Cleary

Sean Cleary contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Data Structures and Algorithmsmath.GRmath.DS

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

An efficient sampling algorithm for difficult tree pairs

It is an open question whether there exists a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the rotation distances between pairs of extended ordered binary trees. The problem of computing the rotation distance between an arbitrary pair of trees, (S, T), can be efficiently reduced to the problem of computing the rotation distance between a difficult pair of trees (S', T'), where there is no known first step which is guaranteed to be the beginning of a minimal length path. Of interest, therefore, is how to sample such difficult pairs of trees of a fixed size. We show that it is possible to do so efficiently, and present such an algorithm that runs in time $O(n^4)$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Counting difficult tree pairs with respect to the rotation distance problem

Rotation distance between rooted binary trees is the minimum number of simple rotations needed to transform one tree into the other. Computing the rotation distance between a pair of rooted trees can be quickly reduced in cases where there is a common edge between the trees, or where a single rotation introduces a common edge. Tree pairs which do not have such a reduction are difficult tree pairs, where there is no generally known first step. Here, we describe efforts to count and estimate the number of such difficult tree pairs, and find that the fraction decreases exponentially fast toward zero. We also describe how knowing the number of distinct instances of the rotation distance problem is a helpful factor in making the computations more feasible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Distributions of restricted rotation distances

Rotation distances measure the differences in structure between rooted ordered binary trees. The one-dimensional skeleta of associahedra are rotation graphs, where two vertices representing trees are connected by an edge if they differ by a single rotation. There are no known efficient algorithms to compute rotation distance between trees and thus distances in rotation graphs. Limiting the allowed locations of where rotations are permitted gives rise to a number of notions of restricted rotation distances. Allowing rotations at a minimal such set of locations gives restricted rotation distance. There are linear-time algorithms to compute restricted rotation distance, where there are only two permitted locations for rotations to occur. The associated restricted rotation graph has an efficient distance algorithm. There are linear upper and lower bounds on restricted rotation distance with respect to the sizes of the reduced tree pairs. Here, we experimentally investigate the expected restricted rotation distance between two trees selected at random of increasing size and find that it lies typically in a narrow band well within the earlier proven linear upper and lower bounds.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Elements with north-south dynamics and free subgroups have positive density in Thompson's groups T and V

We show that the density of elements in Thompson's groups T and V which have north-south dynamics acting on the circle is positive with respect to a stratification in terms of size. We show that the fraction of element pairs which generate a free subgroup of rank two is positive in both groups with respect to a stratification based on diagram size, which shows that the associated subgroup spectra of $T$ and $V$ contain free groups.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2007arXiv

A finitely presented group with unbounded dead-end depth

The dead-end depth of an element g of a group G, with respect to a generating set A is the distance from g to the complement of the radius $d_A(1,g)$ closed ball, in the word metric $d_A$ defined with respect to A. We exhibit a finitely presented group G with a finite generating set with respect to which there is no upper bound on the dead-end depth of elements. The authors regret that the published version of this article (Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 134(2), pp.343-349, 2006) contains a significant error concerning the model for G described in Section 2. We are grateful to Jorg Lehnert for pointing out our mistake. In this corrected version, that model has been overhauled, and that has necessitated a number of changes in the subsequent arguments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access