MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395462958 · doi:10.1002/jgt.23104

Tree independence number I. (Even hole, diamond, pyramid)‐free graphs

2024· article· en· W4395462958 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara Abrishami, Bogdan Alecu, Maria Chudnovsky, Sepehr Hajebi, Sophie Spirkl, Kristina Vušković

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of OntarioAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsTreewidthCombinatoricsMathematicsBounded functionClique-sumPartial k-treeTree-depthDiscrete mathematicsChordal graphIndependent setTree decompositionConjecture1-planar graphGraphPathwidthLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tree‐independence number , first defined and studied by Dallard, Milanič, and Štorgel, is a variant of treewidth tailored to solving the maximum independent set problem. Over a series of papers, Abrishami et al. developed the so‐called central bag method to study induced obstructions to bounded treewidth. Among others, they showed that, in a certain superclass of (even hole, diamond, pyramid)‐free graphs, treewidth is bounded by a function of the clique number. In this paper, we relax the bounded clique number assumption, and show that has bounded . Via existing results, this yields a polynomial‐time algorithm for the Maximum Weight Independent Set problem in this class. Our result also corroborates, for this class of graphs, a conjecture of Dallard, Milanič, and Štorgel that in a hereditary graph class, is bounded if and only if the treewidth is bounded by a function of the clique number.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207