MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307260506 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.8877

Improved product structure for graphs on surfaces

2022· article· en· W4307260506 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Distel, Robert Hickingbotham, Tony Huynh, David R. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryAustralian Government
KeywordsTreewidthCombinatoricsMathematicsPlanar graph1-planar graphGraphPathwidthPartial k-treeGraph minorOuterplanar graphDiscrete mathematicsChordal graphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dujmovi\'c, Joret, Micek, Morin, Ueckerdt and Wood [J. ACM 2020] proved that for every graph $G$ with Euler genus $g$ there is a graph $H$ with treewidth at most 4 and a path $P$ such that $G\subseteq H \boxtimes P \boxtimes K_{\max\{2g,3\}}$. We improve this result by replacing "4" by "3" and with $H$ planar. We in fact prove a more general result in terms of so-called framed graphs. This implies that every $(g,d)$-map graph is contained in $ H \boxtimes P\boxtimes K_\ell$, for some planar graph $H$ with treewidth $3$, where $\ell=\max\{2g\lfloor \frac{d}{2} \rfloor,d+3\lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor-3\}$. It also implies that every $(g,1)$-planar graph (that is, graphs that can be drawn in a surface of Euler genus $g$ with at most one crossing per edge) is contained in $H\boxtimes P\boxtimes K_{\max\{4g,7\}}$, for some planar graph $H$ with treewidth $3$.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207