MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101880654 · doi:10.1002/jgt.21637

Parameters Related to Tree‐Width, Zero Forcing, and Maximum Nullity of a Graph

2012· article· en· W2101880654 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Institute of MathematicsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsMonotone polygonCombinatoricsGraphForcing (mathematics)Path (computing)Minor (academic)Tree (set theory)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tree‐width, and variants that restrict the allowable tree decompositions, play an important role in the study of graph algorithms and have application to computer science. The zero forcing number is used to study the maximum nullity/minimum rank of the family of symmetric matrices described by a graph. We establish relationships between these parameters, including several Colin de Verdière type parameters, and introduce numerous variations, including the minor monotone floors and ceilings of some of these parameters. This leads to new graph parameters and to new characterizations of existing graph parameters. In particular, tree‐width, largeur d'arborescence, path‐width, and proper path‐width are each characterized in terms of a minor monotone floor of a certain zero forcing parameter defined by a color change rule.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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