MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978207776 · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2019.08.033

On Coloring a Class of Claw-free Graphs

2019· article· en· W2978207776 on OpenAlexafffund
Yingjun Dai, Angèle M. Foley, Chı́nh T. Hoàng

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsCographChordal graphSplit graphGraph coloring1-planar graphDiscrete mathematicsLine graphPathwidthVertex (graph theory)Edge coloringIndifference graphGraphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a set L of graphs, a graph G is L -free if G does not contain any graph in L as an induced subgraph. Recently, Frédéric Maffray and co-authors showed that the problem of coloring { claw , 4 K 1 , K 5 \ e }-free graphs can be solved in polynomial time. In this paper, we investigate a related class of graphs. A hole is an induced cycle of length at least 4. Two vertices x , y of a graph G are twins if for any vertex z different from x and y , xz is an edge if and only if yz is an edge. A hole-twin is the graph obtained from a hole by adding a vertex that forms a twin with some vertex of the hole. Hole-twins, and K 5 \ e , are interesting in their connection with line-graphs. They are among the forbidden subgraphs in the characterization of line-graphs. In this paper, we show there is a polynomial time algorithm to color ( claw , 4 K 1 , hole-twin)-free 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 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207