Comparability digraphs: An analogue of comparability graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparability graphs are a popular class of graphs. We introduce as the digraph analogue of comparability graphs the class of comparability digraphs. We show that many concepts such as implication classes and the knotting graph for a comparability graph can be naturally extended to a comparability digraph. We give a characterization of comparability digraphs in terms of their knotting graphs. Semicomplete comparability digraphs are a prototype of comparability digraphs. One instrumental technique for analyzing the structure of comparability graphs is the Triangle Lemma for graphs. We generalize the Triangle Lemma to semicomplete digraphs. Using the Triangle Lemma for semicomplete digraphs we prove that if an implication class of a semicomplete digraph contains no circuit of length 2 then it contains no circuit at all. We also use it to device an $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ time recognition algorithm for semicomplete comparability digraphs where $n$ is the number of vertices of the input digraph. The correctness of the algorithm implies a characterization for semicomplete comparability digraphs, akin to that for comparability graphs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".