MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W154300135

Some Bounds on Alliances in Trees.

2010· article· en· W154300135 on OpenAlexaff
Ararat Harutyunyan

Bibliographic record

VenueCologne Twente Workshop on Graphs and Combinatorial Optimization · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)Dominating setMathematicsCardinality (data modeling)GraphSimple graphAllianceOffensiveUpper and lower boundsSimple (philosophy)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a simple graph G = (V,E), a subset S of the vertices is called a global defensive alliance if S is a dominating set and for every vertex v in S at least half of the vertices in the closed neighborhood of v are in S. Similarly, a subset S is called a global offensive alliance if S is a dominating set and for every vertex v not in S at least half of the vertices in the closed neighborhood of v are in S. In this paper, we study the minimum cardinality global defensive and global offensive alliances of complete k-ary trees. We also give bounds on the difference between these two parameters for general trees.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCologne Twente Workshop on Graphs and Combinatorial OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207