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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
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