MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395208292

Broadcast domination of products of graphs.

2009· article· en· W2395208292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boštjan Brešar, Simon Špacapan

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Combinatoria · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCartesian productDomination analysisCombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)Hamming graphUpper and lower boundsGraphDiscrete mathematicsHamming codeAlgorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broadcast domination in graphs is a variation of domination in which different integer weights are allowed on vertices and a vertex with weight k dominates its distance k-neighborhood. A distribution of weights on vertices of a graph G is called a dominating broadcast, if every vertex is dominated by some vertex with positive weight. The broadcast domination number γb(G) of a graph G is the minimum weight (the sum of weights over all vertices) of a dominating broadcast of G. In this paper we prove that for a connected graph G, γb(G) ≥ ⌈2rad(G)/3⌉. This general bound and a newly introduced concept of condensed dominating broadcast are used in obtaining sharp upper bounds for broadcast domination numbers of three standard graph products in terms of broadcast domination numbers of factors. A lower bound for a broadcast domination number of the Cartesian product of graphs is also determined, and graphs that attain it are characterized. Finally, as an application of these results we determine exact broadcast domination numbers of Hamming graphs and Cartesian products of cycles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArs CombinatoriaSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207