Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore a reconguration version of the dominating set problem, where a dominating set in a graph G is a set S of vertices such that each vertex is either in S or has a neighbour in S. In a reconfiguration problem, the goal is to determine whether there exists a sequence of feasible solutions connecting given feasible solutions s and t such that each pair of consecutive solutions is adjacent according to a specified adjacency relation. Two dominating sets are adjacent if one can be formed from the other by the addition or deletion of a single vertex. For various values of k, we consider properties of Dk(G), the graph con-sisting of a vertex for each dominating set of size at most k and edges speci ed by the adjacency relation. Addressing an open question posed by Haas and Seyffarth, we demonstrate that D (G)+1(G) is not neces-sarily connected, for (G) the maximum cardinality of a minimal dom-inating set in G. The result holds even when graphs are constrained to be planar, of bounded tree-width, or b-partite for b 3. Moreover, we construct an infinite family of graphs such that D \n(G)+1(G) has exponential diameter, for \n(G) the minimum size of a dominating set. On the positive side, we show that Dn(G) is connected and of linear diameter for any graph G on n vertices with a matching of size at least + 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".