MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609797714 · doi:10.7494/opmath.2017.37.4.509

The metric dimension of circulant graphs and their Cartesian products

2017· article· en· W2609797714 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Chau, Shonda Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueOpuscula Mathematica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCirculant matrixDimension (graph theory)Cartesian productMetric dimensionCombinatoricsMetric (unit)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsChordal graphGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph (or hypergraph) and let d(x, y) denote the distance between vertices x, y ∈The minimum cardinality of a resolving set for G is called the metric dimension of G, denoted by β(G).The circulant graph Cn(1, 2, . . ., t) has vertex set {v0, v1, . . ., vn-1} and edges vivi+j where 0 ≤ i ≤ n -1 and 1 ≤ j ≤ t and the indices are taken modulo n (2 ≤ t ≤ n 2 ).In this paper we determine the exact metric dimension of the circulant graphs Cn(1, 2, . . ., t), extending previous results due to Borchert and Gosselin (2013), Grigorious et al. (2014), andVetrík (2016).In particular, we show that β(Cn(1, 2, . . ., t)) = β(Cn+2t(1, 2, . . ., t)) for large enough n, which implies that the metric dimension of these circulants is completely determined by the congruence class of n modulo 2t.We determine the exact value of β(Cn(1, 2, . . ., t)) for n ≡ 2 mod 2t and n ≡ (t + 1) mod 2t and we give better bounds on the metric dimension of these circulants for n ≡ 0 mod 2t and n ≡ 1 mod 2t.In addition, we bound the metric dimension of Cartesian products of circulant 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 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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpuscula MathematicaSame topicGraph Labeling and Dimension ProblemsFrench-language works237,207