Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, Brown gave a set of conditions which when satisfied imply that a Feynman integral evaluates to a multiple zeta value. One of these conditions is called reducibility, which loosely says there is an order of integration for the Feynman integral for which Brown's techniques will succeed. Reducibility can be abstracted away from the Feynman integral to just being a condition on two polynomials, the first and second Symanzik polynomials. These polynomials can be defined from graphs, and thus reducibility is a property of graphs. We prove that for a fixed number of external momenta and no masses, reducibility is graph minor closed, correcting the previously claimed proofs of this fact. A computational study of reducibility was undertaken by Bogner and Lüders who found that for graphs with $4$-on-shell momenta and no masses, $K_{4}$ with momenta on each vertex is a forbidden minor. We add to this and find that when we restrict to graphs with four on-shell external momenta the following graphs are forbidden minors: $K_{4}$ with momenta on each vertex, $W_{4}$ with external momenta on the rim vertices, $K_{2,4}$ with external momenta on the large side of the bipartition, and one other graph. We do not expect that these minors characterize reducibility, so instead we give structural characterizations of the graphs not containing subsets of these minors. We characterize graphs not containing a rooted $K_{4}$ or rooted $W_{4}$ minor, graphs not containing rooted $K_{4}$ or rooted $W_{4}$ or rooted $K_{2,4}$ minors, and also a characterization of graphs not containing all of the known forbidden minors. Some comments are made on graphs not containing $K_{3,4}$, $K_{6}$ or a graph related to Wagner's graph as a minor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".