Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduce the notion of bounded diameter arboricity . Specifically, the diameter ‐ arboricity of a graph is the minimum number such that the edges of the graph can be partitioned into forests each of whose components has diameter at most . A class of graphs has bounded diameter arboricity if there exists a natural number such that every graph in the class has diameter‐ arboricity at most . We conjecture that the class of graphs with arboricity at most has bounded diameter arboricity at most . We prove this conjecture for by proving the stronger assertion that the union of a forest and a star forest can be partitioned into two forests of diameter at most 18. We use these results to characterize the bounded diameter arboricity for planar graphs of girth at least for all . As an application we show that every 6‐edge‐connected planar (multi)graph contains two edge‐disjoint ‐thin spanning trees. Moreover, we answer a question by Mütze and Peter, leading to an improved lower bound on the density of globally sparse Ramsey graphs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".