MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255180715 · doi:10.37236/5642

Symmetric Graphs with Respect to Graph Entropy

2017· preprint· en· W2255180715 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Saeed Changiz Rezaei, Ehsan Chiniforooshan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsGoogle (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsWindmill graphCirculant graphVertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsRegular graphSymmetric graphGraph powerGraphLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $F_G(P)$ be a functional defined on the set of all the probability distributions on the vertex set of a graph $G$. We say that $G$ is symmetric with respect to $F_G(P)$ if the uniform distribution on $V(G)$ maximizes $F_G(P)$. Using the combinatorial definition of the entropy of a graph in terms of its vertex packing polytope and the relationship between the graph entropy and fractional chromatic number, we characterize all graphs which are symmetric with respect to graph entropy. We show that a graph is symmetric with respect to graph entropy if and only if its vertex set can be uniformly covered by its maximum size independent sets. This is also equivalent to saying that the fractional chromatic number of $G$, $\chi_f(G)$, is equal to $\frac{n}{\alpha(G)}$, where $n = |V(G)|$ and $\alpha(G)$ is the independence number of $G$. Furthermore, given any strictly positive probability distribution $P$ on the vertex set of a graph $G$, we show that $P$ is a maximizer of the entropy of graph $G$ if and only if its vertex set can be uniformly covered by its maximum weighted independent sets. We also show that the problem of deciding if a graph is symmetric with respect to graph entropy, where the weight of the vertices is given by probability distribution $P$, is co-NP-hard.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicLimits and Structures in Graph TheoryFrench-language works237,207