MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001998099 · doi:10.7151/dmgt.1377

Couterexample to a conjecture on the structure of bipartite partionable graphs

2007· article· en· W2001998099 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsBipartite graphCartesian productConjectureDisjoint setsPartition (number theory)CounterexampleDiscrete mathematicsVertex (graph theory)GraphEdge-transitive graphGraph powerLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A graph G is called a prism fixer if (G ×K2) = (G), where (G) denotes the domination number of G. A symmetric -set of G is a minimum dominating set D which admits a partition D = D1 ∪ D2 such that V (G) − N[Di] = Dj, i,j = 1,2, i 6 j. It is known that G is a prism fixer if and only if G has a symmetric -set. Hartnell and Rall [On dominating the Cartesian product of a graph and K2, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 24 (2004), 389–402] conjectured that if G is a connected, bipartite graph such that V (G) can be partitioned into symmetric -sets, then G ∼ C4 or G can be obtained from K2t,2t by removing the edges of t vertex-disjoint 4-cycles. We construct a counterexample to this conjecture and prove an alternative result on the structure of such bipartite 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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