MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962977310

Indecomposable tournaments and their indecomposable subtournaments on 5 and 7 vertices.

2013· article· en· W2962977310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Houmem Belkhechine, Imed Boudabbous

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Combinatoria · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTournamentIndecomposable moduleCombinatoricsCardinality (data modeling)MathematicsVertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsInterval (graph theory)GraphComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a tournament T=(V,A), a subset X of $V$ is an interval of T provided that for every a, b in X and x\in V-X, (a,x) in A if and only if (b,x) in A. For example, $\emptyset$, {x}(x in V) and V are intervals of T, called trivial intervals. A tournament, all the intervals of which are trivial, is indecomposable; otherwise, it is decomposable. A critical tournament is an indecomposable tournament T of cardinality $\geq 5$ such that for any vertex x of T, the tournament T-x is decomposable. The critical tournaments are of odd cardinality and for all $n \geq 2$ there are exactly three critical tournaments on 2n+1 vertices denoted by $T_{2n+1}$, $U_{2n+1}$ and $W_{2n+1}$. The tournaments $T_{5}$, $U_{5}$ and $W_{5}$ are the unique indecomposable tournaments on 5 vertices. We say that a tournament T embeds into a tournament T' when T is isomorphic to a subtournament of T'. A diamond is a tournament on 4 vertices admitting only one interval of cardinality 3. We prove the following theorem: if a diamond and $T_{5}$ embed into an indecomposable tournament T, then $W_{5}$ and $U_{5}$ embed into T. To conclude, we prove the following: given an indecomposable tournament T, with $\mid\!V(T)\!\mid \geq 7$, T is critical if and only if the indecomposable subtournaments on 7 vertices of T are isomorphic to one and only one of the tournaments $T_{7}$, $U_{7}$ and $W_{7}$.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArs CombinatoriaSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207