Brooks' Theorem in Graph Streams: A Single-Pass Semi-Streaming Algorithm for $\Delta$-Coloring
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every graph with maximum degree $\Delta$ can be colored with $(\Delta+1)$ colors using a simple greedy algorithm. Remarkably, recent work has shown that one can find such a coloring even in the semi-streaming model. But, in reality, one almost never needs $(\Delta+1)$ colors to properly color a graph. Indeed, the celebrated \Brooks' theorem states that every (connected) graph beside cliques and odd cycles can be colored with $\Delta$ colors. Can we find a $\Delta$-coloring in the semi-streaming model as well? We settle this key question in the affirmative by designing a randomized semi-streaming algorithm that given any graph, with high probability, either correctly declares that the graph is not $\Delta$-colorable or outputs a $\Delta$-coloring of the graph. The proof of this result starts with a detour. We first (provably) identify the extent to which the previous approaches for streaming coloring fail for $\Delta$-coloring: for instance, all these approaches can handle streams with repeated edges and they can run in $o(n^2)$ time -- we prove that neither of these tasks is possible for $\Delta$-coloring. These impossibility results however pinpoint exactly what is missing from prior approaches when it comes to $\Delta$-coloring. We then build on these insights to design a semi-streaming algorithm that uses $(i)$ a novel sparse-recovery approach based on sparse-dense decompositions to (partially) recover the "problematic" subgraphs of the input -- the ones that form the basis of our impossibility results -- and $(ii)$ a new coloring approach for these subgraphs that allows for recoloring of other vertices in a controlled way without relying on local explorations or finding "augmenting paths" that are generally impossible for semi-streaming algorithms. We believe both these techniques can be of independent interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it