Homomorphisms of signed graphs: An update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A signed graph is a graph together with an assignment of signs to the edges. A closed walk in a signed graph is said to be positive (negative) if it has an even (odd) number of negative edges, counting repetition. Recognizing the signs of closed walks as one of the key structural properties of a signed graph, we define a homomorphism of a signed graph $(G,σ)$ to a signed graph $(H, π)$ to be a mapping of vertices and edges of $G$ to (respectively) vertices and edges of $H$ which preserves incidence, adjacency and the signs of closed walks. In this work we first give a characterization of the sets of closed walks in a graph $G$ that correspond to the set of negative walks in some signed graph on $G$. We also give an easy algorithm for the corresponding decision problem. After verifying the equivalence between this definition and earlier ones, we discuss the relation between homomorphisms of signed graphs and those of 2-edge-colored graphs. Next we provide some basic no-homomorphism lemmas. These lemmas lead to a general method of defining chromatic number which is discussed at length. Finally, we list a few problems that are the driving force behind the study of homomorphisms of signed graphs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".