MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381382709 · doi:10.1137/22m150767x

The Spectrum of Triangle-Free Graphs

2023· article· en· W4381382709 on OpenAlexafffund
József Balogh, Felix Christian Clemen, Bernard Lidický, Sergey Norin, Jan Volec

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGrantová Agentura České RepublikyBeckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsVertex (graph theory)Bipartite graphConjectureTriangle-free graphUpper and lower boundsGraphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Denote by [Formula: see text] the smallest eigenvalue of the signless Laplacian matrix of an [Formula: see text]-vertex graph [Formula: see text]. Brandt conjectured in 1997 that for regular triangle-free graphs [Formula: see text]. We prove a stronger result: If [Formula: see text] is a triangle-free graph, then [Formula: see text]. Brandt’s conjecture is a subproblem of two famous conjectures of Erdős: (1) Sparse-half-conjecture: Every [Formula: see text]-vertex triangle-free graph has a subset of vertices of size [Formula: see text] spanning at most [Formula: see text] edges. (2) Every [Formula: see text]-vertex triangle-free graph can be made bipartite by removing at most [Formula: see text] edges. In our proof we use linear algebraic methods to upper bound [Formula: see text] by the ratio between the number of induced paths with 3 and 4 vertices. We give an upper bound on this ratio via the method of flag algebras.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Discrete MathematicsSame topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207