MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767999306 · doi:10.37236/1898

Sequentially Perfect and Uniform One-Factorizations of the Complete Graph

2005· article· en· W2767999306 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey H. Dinitz, Peter J. Dukes, Douglas R. Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsFactorizationDisjoint setsGraphHamiltonian pathComplete graphDiscrete mathematicsPerfect powerInteger (computer science)AlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider a weakening of the definitions of uniform and perfect one-factorizations of the complete graph. Basically, we want to order the $2n-1$ one-factors of a one-factorization of the complete graph $K_{2n}$ in such a way that the union of any two (cyclically) consecutive one-factors is always isomorphic to the same two-regular graph. This property is termed sequentially uniform; if this two-regular graph is a Hamiltonian cycle, then the property is termed sequentially perfect. We will discuss several methods for constructing sequentially uniform and sequentially perfect one-factorizations. In particular, we prove for any integer $n \geq 1$ that there is a sequentially perfect one-factorization of $K_{2n}$. As well, for any odd integer $m \geq 1$, we prove that there is a sequentially uniform one-factorization of $K_{2^t m}$ of type $(4,4,\dots,4)$ for all integers $t \geq 2 + \lceil \log_2 m \rceil$ (where type $(4,4,\dots,4)$ denotes a two-regular graph consisting of disjoint cycles of length four).

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207