MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165244533 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22685

The list linear arboricity of graphs

2021· article· en· W3165244533 on OpenAlexafffund
Ringi Kim, Luke Postle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsArboricityMathematicsCombinatoricsConjectureDegeneracy (biology)Dense graphGraphDiscrete mathematicsPathwidthPlanar graphLine graphBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A linear forest is a forest in which every connected component is a path. The linear arboricity of a graph is the minimum number of linear forests of covering all edges. In 1980, Akiyama, Exoo, and Harary proposed a conjecture, known as the Linear Arboricity Conjecture (LAC), stating that every ‐regular graph has linear arboricity . In 1988, Alon proved that the LAC holds asymptotically. In 1999, the list version of the LAC was raised by An and Wu, which is called the List Linear Arboricity Conjecture. In this article, we prove that the List Linear Arboricity Conjecture holds asymptotically.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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