MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945020291 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62127-2_9

Dynamic graph coloring

2017· book-chapter· en· W2945020291 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Barba, Jean Cardinal, Matias Korman, Stefan Langerman, André van Renssen, Marcel Roeloffzen, Sander Verdonschot

Bibliographic record

VenueDépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsList coloringVertex (graph theory)GraphFractional coloringComplete coloringEdge coloringUpper and lower boundsWheel graphChromatic scaleMathematicsGraph coloringBrooks' theoremPath graphGraph powerDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study the number of vertex recolorings that an algorithm needs to perform in order to maintain a proper coloring of a graph under insertion and deletion of vertices and edges. We present two algorithms that achieve different trade-offs between the number of recolorings and the number of colors used. For any d > 0, the first algorithm maintains a proper O(CdN1/d)-coloring while recoloring at most O(d) vertices per update, where C and N are the maximum chromatic number and maximum number of vertices, respectively. The second algorithm reverses the trade-off, maintaining an O(Cd)-coloring with O(dN1/d) recolorings per update. We also present a lower bound, showing that any algorithm that maintains a c-coloring of a 2-colorable graph on N vertices must recolor at least Ω(N 2/ c(c−1)) vertices per update, for any constant c ≥ 2.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles)Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207