MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026418435 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22579

Generating simple near-bipartite bricks

2017· article· W3026418435 on OpenAlexafffund
Nishad Kothari, Marcelo H. de Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Mato Grosso do SulUniversity of WaterlooConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsBipartite graphCombinatoricsMathematicsBrickComplete bipartite graphMatching (statistics)Vertex (graph theory)Simple (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Discrete mathematicsGraphComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brick is a $3$-connected graph such that the graph obtained from it by deleting any two distinct vertices has a perfect matching. A brick $G$ is near-bipartite if it has a pair of edges $α$ and $β$ such that $G-\{α,β\}$ is bipartite and matching covered; examples are $K_4$ and the triangular prism $\overline{C_6}$. The significance of near-bipartite bricks arises from the theory of ear decompositions of matching covered graphs. The object of this paper is to establish a generation procedure which is specific to the class of simple near-bipartite bricks. In particular, we prove that every simple near-bipartite brick $G$ has an edge $e$ so that the graph obtained from $G-e$ by contracting each edge that is incident with a vertex of degree two is also a simple near-bipartite brick, unless $G$ belongs to any of eight well-defined infinite families. This is a refinement of the brick generation theorem of Norine and Thomas (Generating Bricks, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 2007) which is appropriate for the restricted class of near-bipartite bricks. Earlier, the first author (Generating near-bipartite bricks, J. Graph Theory, 2019) proved a similar generation theorem for (not necessarily simple) near-bipartite bricks; we deduce our main result from this theorem. Our proof is based on the strategy of Carvalho, Lucchesi and Murty (2008) and uses several of their techniques and results. The results presented here also appear in the Ph.D. thesis of the first author.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207