MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996084168 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22530

Graph homomorphism reconfiguration and frozen H‐colorings

2019· article· en· W2996084168 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard C. Brewster, Jae-baek Lee, Benjamin Moore, Jonathan A. Noel, Mark Siggers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyNational Research Foundation of KoreaKyungpook National University
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsGraph coloringHomomorphismDiscrete mathematicsEdge coloringVertex (graph theory)Nondeterministic algorithmGraphFractional coloringGraph powerLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For a fixed graph H, the reconfiguration problem for H‐colorings (ie, homomorphisms to H) asks: given a graph G and two H‐colorings and of G, does there exist a sequence of H‐colorings such that , , and for every and ? If the graph G is loop‐free, then this is the equivalent to asking whether it possible to transform into by changing the color of one vertex at a time such that all intermediate mappings are H‐colorings. In the affirmative, we say that reconfigures to . Currently, the complexity of deciding whether an H‐coloring reconfigures to an H‐coloring is only known when H is a clique, a circular clique, a ‐free graph, or in a few other cases which are easily derived from these. We show that this problem is PSPACE‐complete when H is an odd wheel. An important notion in the study of reconfiguration problems for H‐colorings is that of a frozen H‐coloring; that is, an H‐coloring such that does not reconfigure to any H‐coloring such that . We obtain an explicit dichotomy theorem for the problem of deciding whether a given graph G admits a frozen H‐coloring. The hardness proof involves a reduction from a constraint satisfaction problem which is shown to be nondeterministic polynomial time NP‐complete by establishing the nonexistence of a certain type of polymorphism.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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