MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951887113 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.math/0502452

Local chromatic number and distinguishing the strength of topological obstructions

2005· preprint· en· W2951887113 on OpenAlexaff
Gábor Simonyi, Gábor Tardos, Siniša T. Vrećica

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatic scaleCombinatoricsMathematicsHomomorphismFriendship graphCritical graphUpper and lower boundsGraphVertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsHierarchyTopology (electrical circuits)Line graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The local chromatic number of a graph G is the number of colors appearing in the most colorful closed neighborhood of a vertex minimized over all proper colorings of G. We show that two specific topological obstructions that have the same implications for the chromatic number have different implications for the local chromatic number. These two obstructions can be formulated in terms of the homomorphism complex Hom(K_2,G) and its suspension, respectively. These investigations follow the line of research initiated by Matousek and Ziegler who recognized a hierarchy of the different topological expressions that can serve as lower bounds for the chromatic number of a graph. Our results imply that the local chromatic number of 4-chromatic Kneser, Schrijver, Borsuk, and generalized Mycielski graphs is 4, and more generally, that 2r-chromatic versions of these graphs have local chromatic number at least r+2. This lower bound is tight in several cases by results in an earlier paper of the first two authors.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207