MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502166895 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.387

Complexity results on graphs with few cliques

2007· article· en· W1502166895 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsChordal graphSplit graphDiscrete mathematicsClique graphVertex coverClique-sumIndifference graphCographVertex (graph theory)Clique problemBlock graphTime complexityTreewidthPathwidthGraph1-planar graphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphs and Algorithms A graph class has few cliques if there is a polynomial bound on the number of maximal cliques contained in any member of the class. This restriction is equivalent to the requirement that any graph in the class has a polynomial sized intersection representation that satisfies the Helly property. On any such class of graphs, some problems that are NP-complete on general graphs, such as the maximum clique problem and the maximum weighted clique problem, admit polynomial time algorithms. Other problems, such as the vertex clique cover and edge clique cover problems remain NP-complete on these classes. Several classes of graphs which have few cliques are discussed, and the complexity of some partitioning and covering problems are determined for the class of all graphs which have fewer cliques than a given polynomial bound.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it