MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031110152 · doi:10.1017/s0963548399004162

Zeros of Reliability Polynomials and <i>f</i>-vectors of Matroids

2000· article· en· W2031110152 on OpenAlexaff
David G. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorics Probability Computing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatroidMultigraphMathematicsCombinatoricsInterlacingOrder (exchange)ConjectureSeries (stratigraphy)Discrete mathematicsFunction (biology)Hermite polynomialsPolynomialPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a finite multigraph G , the reliability function of G is the probability R G ( q ) that if each edge of G is deleted independently with probability q then the remaining edges of G induce a connected spanning subgraph of G ; this is a polynomial function of q . In 1992, Brown and Colbourn conjectured that, for any connected multigraph G , if q ∈ [Copf ] is such that R G ( q ) = 0 then [mid ] q [mid ] [les ] 1. We verify that this conjectured property of R G ( q ) holds if G is a series-parallel network. The proof is by an application of the Hermite–Biehler theorem and development of a theory of higher-order interlacing for polynomials with only real nonpositive zeros. We conclude by establishing some new inequalities which are satisfied by the f -vector of any matroid without coloops, and by discussing some stronger inequalities which would follow (in the cographic case) from the Brown–Colbourn conjecture, and are hence true for cographic matroids of series-parallel networks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations56
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombinatorics Probability ComputingSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207