MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382791606 · doi:10.37236/11463

How Many Cliques Can a Clique Cover Cover?

2023· article· en· W4382791606 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCommutative Algebra and Its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationCombinatoricsMathematicsPartition (number theory)QuotientDiscrete mathematicsCliqueClique graphCover (algebra)GraphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work examines the problem of clique enumeration on a graph by exploiting its clique covers. The principle of inclusion/exclusion is applied to determine the number of cliques of size $r$ in the graph union of a set $\mathcal{C} = \{c_1, \ldots, c_m\}$ of $m$ cliques. This leads to a deeper examination of the sets involved and to an orbit partition, $\Gamma$, of the power set $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{N}_{m})$ of $\mathcal{N}_{m} = \{1, \ldots, m\}$. Applied to the cliques, this partition gives insight into clique enumeration and yields new results on cliques within a clique cover, including expressions for the number of cliques of size $r$ as well as generating functions for the cliques on these graphs. The quotient graph modulo this partition provides a succinct representation to determine cliques and maximal cliques in the graph union. The partition also provides a natural and powerful framework for related problems, such as the enumeration of induced connected components, by drawing upon a connection to extremal set theory through intersecting sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.278 · 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