MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397618970

On a Conjecture Concerning the Friendly Index Sets of Trees.

2009· article· en· W2397618970 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Combinatoria · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjectureMathematicsCombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)GraphIndex (typography)Discrete mathematicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a graph G = (V,E) and a binary labeling f : V (G) → Z2, let vf (i) = |f−1(i)|. The labling f is said to be friendly if |vf (1)−vf (0)| ≤ 1. Any vertex labeling f : V (G) → Z2 induces an edge labeling f∗ : E(G) → Z2 defined by f∗(xy) = |f(x)− f(y)|. Let ef (i) = |f∗−1(i)|. The friendly index set of the graph G, denoted by FI(G), is defined by FI(G) = {|ef (1)− ef (0)| : f is a friendly vertex labeling of G }. In [15] Lee and Ng conjectured that the friendly index sets of trees will form an arithmetic progression. This conjecture has been mentioned in [17] and other manuscripts. In this paper we will first determine the friendly index sets of certain caterpillars of diameter four. Then we will disprove the conjecture by presenting an infinite number of trees whose friendly index sets do not form an arithmetic progression.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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