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 OpenAlexafffund
Francesco Barioli, Wayne Barrett, Shaun Fallat, H. Tracy Hall, Leslie Hogben, Bryan L. Shader, P. van den Driessche, Hein van der Holst

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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

Citations123
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207