MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945315668 · doi:10.1515/ms-2017-0241

Perfect 1-factorizations

2019· article· en· W2945315668 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

VenueMathematica Slovaca · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsHamiltonian pathDiscrete mathematicsCographPartition (number theory)FactorizationTrivially perfect graphVertex (graph theory)GraphChordal graph1-planar graphAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let G be a graph with vertex-set V = V ( G ) and edge-set E = E ( G ). A 1- factor of G (also called perfect matching ) is a factor of G of degree 1, that is, a set of pairwise disjoint edges which partitions V . A 1- factorization of G is a partition of its edge-set E into 1-factors. For a graph G to have a 1-factor, | V ( G )| must be even, and for a graph G to admit a 1-factorization, G must be regular of degree r , 1 ≤ r ≤ | V | − 1. One can find in the literature at least two extensive surveys [69] and [89] and also a whole book [90] devoted to 1-factorizations of (mainly) complete graphs. A 1-factorization of G is said to be perfect if the union of any two of its distinct 1-factors is a Hamiltonian cycle of G . An early survey on perfect 1-factorizations (abbreviated as P1F) of complete graphs is [83]. In the book [90] a whole chapter (Chapter 16) is devoted to perfect 1-factorizations of complete graphs. It is the purpose of this article to present what is known to-date on P1Fs, not only of complete graphs but also of other regular graphs, primarily cubic 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.164 · 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