MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1930792227 · doi:10.1002/jgt.21711

Decomposition of Sparse Graphs into Forests and a Graph with Bounded Degree

2013· article· en· W1930792227 on OpenAlexaff
Seog‐Jin Kim, Alexandr Kostochka, Douglas B. West, Hehui Wu, Xuding Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArboricityMultigraphMathematicsCombinatoricsDegree (music)ConjectureDense graphPlanar graphBounded functionGraphDiscrete mathematicsTree decompositionPathwidth1-planar graphChordal graphLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For a loopless multigraph G, the fractional arboricity Arb(G) is the maximum of over all subgraphs H with at least two vertices. Generalizing the Nash‐Williams Arboricity Theorem, the Nine Dragon Tree Conjecture asserts that if , then G decomposes into forests with one having maximum degree at most d. The conjecture was previously proved for ; we prove it for and when and . For , we can further restrict one forest to have at most two edges in each component. For general , we prove weaker conclusions. If , then implies that G decomposes into k forests plus a multigraph (not necessarily a forest) with maximum degree at most d. If , then implies that G decomposes into forests, one having maximum degree at most d. Our results generalize earlier results about decomposition of sparse planar graphs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207