MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251896413 · doi:10.1002/jgt.20248

On the chromatic spectrum of acyclic decompositions of graphs

2007· article· en· W4251896413 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert E. Jamison, Eric Mendelsohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsPartition (number theory)Bipartite graphSpectrum (functional analysis)GraphChromatic polynomialDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract If G is any graph, a G‐decomposition of a host graph H = ( V , E ) is a partition of the edge set of H into subgraphs of H which are isomorphic to G . The chromatic index of a G ‐decomposition is the minimum number of colors required to color the parts of the decomposition so that two parts which share a node get different colors. The G‐spectrum of H is the set of all chromatic indices taken on by G ‐decompositions of H . If both S and T are trees, then the S ‐spectrum of T consists of a single value which can be computed in polynomial time. On the other hand, for any fixed tree S , not a single edge, there is a unicyclic host whose S ‐spectrum has two values, and if the host is allowed to be arbitrary, the S ‐spectrum can take on arbitrarily many values. Moreover, deciding if an integer k is in the S ‐spectrum of a general bipartite graph is NP‐hard. We show that if G has c > 1 components, then there is a host H whose G ‐spectrum contains both 3 and 2 c + 1. If G is a forest, then there is a tree T whose G ‐spectrum contains both 2 and 2 c . Furthermore, we determine the complete spectra of both paths and cycles with respect to matchings. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory 56: 83–104, 2007

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)0.002
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207