MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044393101 · doi:10.2298/yjor0402147c

On some interconnections between combinatorial optimization and extremal graph theory

2004· article· en· W2044393101 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

VenueYugoslav journal of operations research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaHeuristicsCombinatorial optimizationExtremal graph theoryExtremal optimizationMathematicsGraph theoryGraphOptimization problemMathematical optimizationCombinatoricsComputer scienceLine graphVoltage graphMeta-optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uniting feature of combinatorial optimization and extremal graph theory is that in both areas one should find extrema of a function defined in most cases on a finite set. While in combinatorial optimization the point is in developing efficient algorithms and heuristics for solving specified types of problems, the extremal graph theory deals with finding bounds for various graph invariants under some constraints and with constructing extremal graphs. We analyze by examples some interconnections and interactions of the two theories and propose some conclusions.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.280 · 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