MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Graph Search Techniques

2011· other· en· W2109176424 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

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGraphComputer scienceCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceMixed graphMathematicsLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given a graph, suppose that there is a robber hiding on vertices or along edges. A graph searching problem is to find the minimum number of searchers required to capture the robber. In this article, we describe the main characteristics of graph searching problems. For undirected graphs, we consider the edge search, node search, mixed search, visible‐robber game, and inert‐robber game. For digraphs, we consider directed search, strong search, weak search, strong direct visible‐robber game, directed visible‐robber game, and directed inert‐robber game. We also deal with cops‐and‐robber games in which cops and the robber take turns to move. Most searching problems correspond to width parameters in graph theory. We describe the relationships between models and width parameters. We only survey the basic models, giving references to other variants.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.003
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.308 · 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