MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022630997 · doi:10.1002/jgt.20560

Disjoint Hamilton cycles in the random geometric graph

2011· article· en· W2022630997 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Müller, Xavier Pérez‐Giménez, Nicholas Wormald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsConjectureDisjoint setsHamiltonian pathPairwise comparisonDiscrete mathematicsLine graphRandom graphGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the standard random geometric graph process in which n vertices are placed at random on the unit square and edges are sequentially added in increasing order of edge-length. For fixed k⩾1, weprove that the first edge in the process that creates a k-connected graph coincides a.a.s. with the first edge that causes the graph to contain k/2 pairwise edge-disjoint Hamilton cycles (for even k), or (k−1)/2 Hamilton cycles plus one perfect matching, all of them pairwise edge-disjoint (for odd k). This proves and extends a conjecture of Krivelevich and M ler. In the special case when k = 2, our result says that the first edge that makes the random geometric graph Hamiltonian is a.a.s. exactly the same one that gives 2-connectivity, which answers a question of Penrose. (This result appeared in three independent preprints, one of which was a precursor to this article.) We prove our results with lengths measured using the ℓp norm for any p>1, and we also extend our result to higher dimensions. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory 68:299-322, 2011

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207