Rainbow perfect matchings and Hamilton cycles in the random\ngeometric graph
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a graph on n vertices and an assignment of colours to the edges, a rainbow Hamilton cycle is a cycle of length n visiting each vertex once and with pairwise different colours on the edges. Similarly (for even n) a rainbow perfect matching is a collection of n/2 independent edges with pairwise different colours. In this note we show that if we randomly colour the edges of a random geometric graph with sufficiently many colours, then a.a.s. the graph contains a rainbow perfect matching (rainbow Hamilton cycle) if and only if the minimum degree is at least 1 (respectively, at least 2). More precisely, consider n points (i.e. vertices) chosen independently and uniformly at random from the unit d-dimensional cube for any fixed d ≥ 2. Form a sequence of graphs on these n vertices by adding edges one by one between each possible pair of vertices. Edges are added in increasing order of lengths (measured with respect to the ℓp norm, for any fixed 1 < p ≤ ∞). Each time a new edge is added, it receives a random colour chosen uniformly at random and with repetition from a set of ⌈Kn⌉ colours, where K = K(d) is a sufficiently large fixed constant. Then, a.a.s. the first graph in the sequence with minimum degree at least 1 must contain a rainbow perfect matching (for even n), and the first graph with minimum degree at least 2 must contain a rainbow Hamilton cycle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it