Deep Learning of Topological Equivalence Classes

Given the data of the character table of G one may use character theory to estimate the difficulty of finding all generating vectors of G for a particular signature, and the expected number. Denote with C_i a conjugacy class in G, let x_i \in C_i, and denote with \lbrace \chi_i \rbrace the irreducible characters of G. It is then known the size of the conjugacy classes may be determined by the orthogonality relation

Fixing conjugacy classes C_1, \dots, C_r one may imagine an algorithm which searches for generating vectors with \gamma_i \in C_i by looping over the cartesian product C_1 \times \dots \times C_{r-1} and checking whether the inverse of the product is in C_r. This is a search over a space of size |C_1|\times \dots \times |C_{r-1}| which may be determined, and the number of solutions is given by Frobenius’ formula [Breuer2000, Theorem 14.1]

An early proof-of-concept design as described above, one which assigned a generating vector to a fixed list of equivalence classes, performed well within its class list but was still ultimately abandoned for generalisability reasons.

In optimising the code for computing all the generating vectors and their topological equivalence classes, the main improvement came from precomputing many properties for each finite group G. In particular, we generated an ordered list of elements, and thus turned group multiplication, inverse, the order of a group element, and the action of generators of \mathrm{Aut}(G) into integer arrays. This means that a single call of the computer algebra system Sage (and implicitly GAP) was required for each group, and then computing every generating vector and its orbit for each signature associate to that group could be done entirely using Python arrays.

Abstract groups were given a faithful permutation representation via the GAP commands IsomorphismPermGroup and SmallerDegreePermutation Representation. The upper bound of n=500 was not strict, a lower value could be found and so one could use fewer distinct tokens to tokenise the element of generating vectors.

Transpositions were chosen in [Petschack2025] because they are known to generate the symmetric group, and the maximum word length for an element of the symmetric group as written in the alphabet of transpositions is known in advance. Not all the possible tokens in \lbrace 0, \dots, n^2-1\rbrace will appear, for example not i-1 for i=1,\dots, n which corresponds to s_{i1}.

One can in principle tokenise elements of the symmetric group in an analogous way provided any generating set for which one knows the maximum possible word length (and can solve the word problem efficiently). As a step in experimentation we attempted using a single transposition and 3-cycles as the generating set, but this led to too many tokens and so was abandoned as a possible tokenising step. One may ask the question as to whether different generating sets can be chosen leading to a smaller number of tokens.

The model in [Yang2019] consists of a series of repeated blocks which process the input. As in the original paper we experimented with varying the number of blocks to be 1, 2, 3 and 4, seeing only marginal impact upon performance. As such, we kept the default value of 3 blocks.

The use of the 1d convolution before applying the maximum over element in a generating vector ensures that the model in not invariant under permuting the elements of the generating vector, as in this latter scenario model errors are guaranteed from configurations such as in Example 1.5. In development we experimented with positional embedding features but found that this performed worse.

Conversely, using the symmetric prediction layer means that the model prediction for whether two generating vectors are in the same equivalence class does not depend on the order they are provided to the model as one would desire.