MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000238327 · doi:10.37236/7874

The Chromatic Number of Finite Group Cayley Tables

2019· article· en· W3000238327 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Goddyn, Kevin Halasz, E. S. Mahmoodian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsCayley graphAbelian groupConjectureUpper and lower boundsGroup (periodic table)Chromatic scaleFinite groupSylow theoremsCover (algebra)Discrete mathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chromatic number of a latin square $L$, denoted $\chi(L)$, is the minimum number of partial transversals needed to cover all of its cells. It has been conjectured that every latin square satisfies $\chi(L) \leq |L|+2$. If true, this would resolve a longstanding conjecture—commonly attributed to Brualdi—that every latin square has a partial transversal of size $|L|-1$. Restricting our attention to Cayley tables of finite groups, we prove two results. First, we resolve the chromatic number question for Cayley tables of finite Abelian groups: the Cayley table of an Abelian group $G$ has chromatic number $|G|$ or $|G|+2$, with the latter case occurring if and only if $G$ has nontrivial cyclic Sylow 2-subgroups. Second, we give an upper bound for the chromatic number of Cayley tables of arbitrary finite groups. For $|G|\geq 3$, this improves the best-known general upper bound from $2|G|$ to $\frac{3}{2}|G|$, while yielding an even stronger result in infinitely many cases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207