Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1980, Akiyama, Exoo and Harary posited the Linear Arboricity Conjecture which states that any graph G of maximum degree $$\Delta $$ Δ can be decomposed into at most "Equation missing" linear forests. (A forest is linear if all of its components are paths.) In 1988, Alon proved the conjecture holds asymptotically. The current best bound is due to Ferber, Fox and Jain from 2020 who showed that $$\frac{\Delta }{2}+ O(\Delta ^{0.661})$$ Δ 2 + O ( Δ 0.661 ) suffices for large enough $$\Delta $$ Δ . Here, we show that G admits a decomposition into at most $$\frac{\Delta }{2}+ 3\sqrt{\Delta } \log ^4 \Delta $$ Δ 2 + 3 Δ log 4 Δ linear forests provided $$\Delta $$ Δ is large enough. Moreover, our result also holds in the more general list setting, where edges have (possibly different) sets of permissible linear forests. Thus our bound also holds for the List Linear Arboricity Conjecture which was only recently shown to hold asymptotically by Kim and the second author. Indeed, our proof method ties together the Linear Arboricity Conjecture and the well-known List Colouring Conjecture; consequently, our error term for the Linear Arboricity Conjecture matches the best known error-term for the List Colouring Conjecture due to Molloy and Reed from 2000. This follows as we make two copies of every colour and then seek a proper edge colouring where we avoid bicoloured cycles between a colour and its copy; we achieve this via a clever modification of the nibble method.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.010 |
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".