MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392682309 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.05439

Scarf complexes of graphs and their powers

2024· preprint· en· W4392682309 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sara Faridi, Huy Tài Hà, Takayuki Hibi, Susan Morey

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVietnam Institute for Advanced Study in Mathematics
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every multigraded free resolution of a monomial ideal I contains the Scarf multidegrees of I. We say I has a Scarf resolution if the Scarf multidegrees are sufficient to describe a minimal free resolution of I. The main question of this paper is which graphs G have edge ideal I(G) with a Scarf resolution? We show that I(G) has a Scarf resolution if and only if G is a gap-free forest. We also classify connected graphs for which all powers of I(G) have Scarf resolutions. Along the way, we give a concrete description of the Scarf complex of any forest. For a general graph, we give a recursive construction for its Scarf complex based on Scarf complexes of induced subgraphs.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.123 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207