MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366829792 · doi:10.1017/s096354832300010x

Expected number of faces in a random embedding of any graph is at most linear

2023· article· en· W4366829792 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorics Probability Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsEmbeddingConjectureMultigraphUpper and lower boundsVertex (graph theory)Random regular graphDiscrete mathematicsRandom graphGraph embeddingMultiplicity (mathematics)Graph1-planar graphLine graphComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A random two-cell embedding of a given graph $G$ is obtained by choosing a random local rotation around every vertex. We analyse the expected number of faces of such an embedding, which is equivalent to studying its average genus. In 1991, Stahl [5] proved that the expected number of faces in a random embedding of an arbitrary graph of order $n$ is at most $n\log (n)$ . While there are many families of graphs whose expected number of faces is $\Theta (n)$ , none are known where the expected number would be super-linear. This led the authors of [1] to conjecture that there is a linear upper bound. In this note we confirm their conjecture by proving that for any $n$ -vertex multigraph, the expected number of faces in a random two-cell embedding is at most $2n\log (2\mu )$ , where $\mu$ is the maximum edge-multiplicity. This bound is best possible up to a constant factor.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.277 · 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