2107.02115
Persistence of Conley-Morse Graphs in Combinatorial Dynamical Systems
Tamal K. Dey, Marian Mrozek, Ryan Slechta
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Strong Field
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper proves three targets: (A) Algorithm 1 enumerates all Conley–Morse filtrations by constructing all maximal feasible sequences of index pairs and converting them using Theorem 14’s intersection property; this is stated and argued in Proposition 17 with the algorithm listed in full . (B) For the relevant Conley–Morse graphs, the induced maps f_i are simplicial, yielding a zigzag G1 ← G1,2 → G2 ← ··· → Gn and a well-defined barcode via simplicial maps . (C) The redundancy-elimination procedure (Algorithm 2) returns exactly the maximal bars, one per supporting subfiltration, as formalized by Definitions/Propositions 26–28 and an accompanying argument . The candidate solution’s proofs match these claims: it gives a more structured DAG-based proof for (A), a standard simpliciality argument for (B), and a clean invariant-based justification for (C). The only minor overreach is a passing suggestion of uniqueness in (A); the paper only requires that every Conley–Morse filtration arises from some maximal feasible sequence, not that the representation is unique. Overall, both are correct and aligned in substance.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field
\textbf{Justification:}
The manuscript presents a clear framework to extract and aggregate barcodes reflecting both vertex-level Conley index changes and graph-structural changes via relevant Conley–Morse graphs. Algorithms are practical and well-motivated. Proofs are correct but occasionally terse. Making invariants explicit (e.g., for Algorithm 1) and foregrounding assumptions would enhance rigor and readability. The contribution is useful to the combinatorial dynamics and TDA communities.