Odd‐angulated graphs and cancelling factors in box products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Under what conditions is it true that if there is a graph homomorphism G □ H → G □ T, then there is a graph homomorphism H→ T? Let G be a connected graph of odd girth 2k + 1. We say that G is (2k + 1)‐angulated if every two vertices of G are joined by a path each of whose edges lies on some (2k + 1)‐cycle. We call G strongly (2k + 1)‐angulated if every two vertices are connected by a sequence of (2k + 1)‐cycles with consecutive cycles sharing at least one edge. We prove that if G is strongly (2k + 1)‐angulated, H is any graph, S, T are graphs with odd girth at least 2k + 1, and ϕ: G□ H→S□T is a graph homomorphism, then either ϕ maps G□{h} to S□{th} for all h∈V(H) where th∈V(T) depends on h; or ϕ maps G□{h} to {sh}□ T for all h∈V(H) where sh∈V(S) depends on h. This theorem allows us to prove several sufficient conditions for a cancelation law of a graph homomorphism between two box products with a common factor. We conclude the article with some open questions. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory 58:221‐238, 2008
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".