MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963127852 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22157

Completing orientations of partially oriented graphs

2017· article· en· W2963127852 on OpenAlexafffund
Jørgen Bang‐Jensen, Jing Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We initiate a general study of what we call orientation completion problems. For a fixed class of oriented graphs, the orientation completion problem asks whether a given partially oriented graph P can be completed to an oriented graph in by orienting the (nonoriented) edges in P. Orientation completion problems commonly generalize several existing problems including recognition of certain classes of graphs and digraphs as well as extending representations of certain geometrically representable graphs. We study orientation completion problems for various classes of oriented graphs, including k‐arc‐strong oriented graphs, k‐strong oriented graphs, quasi‐transitive‐oriented graphs, local tournaments, acyclic local tournaments, locally transitive tournaments, locally transitive local tournaments, in‐tournaments, and oriented graphs that have directed cycle factors. We show that the orientation completion problem for each of these classes is either polynomial time solvable or NP‐complete. We also show that some of the NP‐complete problems become polynomial time solvable when the input‐oriented graphs satisfy certain extra conditions. Our results imply that the representation extension problems for proper interval graphs and for proper circular arc graphs are polynomial time solvable. The latter generalizes a previous result.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207