Triple

T21046820
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Sperner family E518470 entity
Predicate relatedConcept P37 FINISHED
Object LYM inequality NE NERFINISHED

How this triple was built (3 steps)

Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.

NER Named-entity recognition gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: LYM inequality | Statement: [Sperner family, relatedConcept, LYM inequality]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: LYM inequality
Context triple: [Sperner family, relatedConcept, LYM inequality]
  • A. Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya inequality
    The Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya inequality is a fundamental result in majorization theory and inequalities that characterizes how convex functions behave under rearrangements of sequences or vectors.
  • B. Brunn–Minkowski inequality
    The Brunn–Minkowski inequality is a fundamental result in convex geometry and analysis that relates the volumes of sets in Euclidean space to the volume of their Minkowski sum, underpinning many isoperimetric and functional inequalities.
  • C. Muirhead's inequality
    Muirhead's inequality is a fundamental result in symmetric inequalities that compares sums of symmetric power terms of variables based on majorization of exponent sequences.
  • D. Karamata's inequality
    Karamata's inequality is a fundamental result in majorization theory that generalizes several classical inequalities by comparing sums of convex (or concave) functions over majorized sequences.
  • E. Riesz rearrangement inequality
    The Riesz rearrangement inequality is a fundamental result in mathematical analysis that provides an optimal bound for integrals of products of functions in terms of their symmetric decreasing rearrangements.
  • F. None of above. chosen
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: LYM inequality
Target entity description: The LYM inequality is a fundamental result in extremal set theory that bounds the size of an antichain in a finite Boolean lattice by relating it to binomial coefficients.
  • A. Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya inequality
    The Hardy–Littlewood–Pólya inequality is a fundamental result in majorization theory and inequalities that characterizes how convex functions behave under rearrangements of sequences or vectors.
  • B. Brunn–Minkowski inequality
    The Brunn–Minkowski inequality is a fundamental result in convex geometry and analysis that relates the volumes of sets in Euclidean space to the volume of their Minkowski sum, underpinning many isoperimetric and functional inequalities.
  • C. Muirhead's inequality
    Muirhead's inequality is a fundamental result in symmetric inequalities that compares sums of symmetric power terms of variables based on majorization of exponent sequences.
  • D. Karamata's inequality
    Karamata's inequality is a fundamental result in majorization theory that generalizes several classical inequalities by comparing sums of convex (or concave) functions over majorized sequences.
  • E. Riesz rearrangement inequality
    The Riesz rearrangement inequality is a fundamental result in mathematical analysis that provides an optimal bound for integrals of products of functions in terms of their symmetric decreasing rearrangements.
  • F. None of above. chosen

Provenance (2 batches)

The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.

Step Stage Batch ID Status When
creating Elicitation batch_69e0b50438e08190917e2538bb8bc034 completed April 16, 2026, 10:08 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e6fcf4d26481908b639996500a8319 completed April 21, 2026, 4:28 a.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 2:34 p.m.