MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107112554 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.10641

The node cop-win reliability of unicyclic and bicyclic graphs

2020· preprint· en· W3107112554 on OpenAlexaff
Maimoonah Ahmed, Ben Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsGraphRandom graphDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various models to quantify the reliability of a network have been studied where certain components of the graph may fail at random and the probability that the remaining graph is connected is the proxy for reliability. In this work we introduce a strengthening of one of these models by considering the probability that the remaining graph is not just connected but also cop-win. A graph is cop-win if one cop can guarantee capture of a fleeing robber in the well-studied pursuit-evasion game of Cops and Robber. More precisely, for a graph $G$ with nodes that are operational independently with probability $p$ and edges that are operational if and only if both of their endpoints are operational, the node cop-win reliability of $G$, denoted $\text{NCRel}(G,p)$, is the probability that the operational nodes induce a cop-win subgraph of $G$. It is then of interest to find graphs $G$ with $n$ nodes and $m$ edges such that $\text{NCRel}(G,p)\ge\text{NCRel}(H,p)$ for all $p\in[0,1]$ and all graphs $H$ with $n$ nodes and $m$ edges. Such a graph is called uniformly most reliable. We show that uniformly most reliable graphs exist for unicyclic and bicyclic graphs, respectively. This is in contrast to the fact that there are no known sparse graphs maximizing the corresponding notion of node reliability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207