MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399213339 · doi:10.37236/12429

Constructing Graphs with No Independent Transversals

2024· article· en· W4399213339 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Haxell, Ronen Wdowinski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsMaximal independent setChordal graph1-planar graphGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a graph $G$ and a partition $P$ of its vertex set, an independent transversal (IT) is an independent set of $G$ that contains one vertex from each block in $P$. Various sufficient conditions for the existence of an IT have been established, and a common theme for many of them is that the block sizes are sufficiently large compared to the maximum degree of $G$. Consequently, there has been interest in constructing graphs with no IT which demonstrate that these bounds on the block sizes are best possible. We describe a simple systematic method for constructing vertex-partitioned graphs with large block sizes and no IT. Unifying previous constructions, we use our method to derive classical extremal constructions due to Jin (1992), Yuster (1997), and Szabó and Tardos (2006) in streamlined fashion. For our new results, we describe extremal constructions of minimal graphs with maximum degree two and no IT, generalizing a result of Aharoni, Holzman, Howard, and Sprüssel (2015). We construct a family of locally sparse graphs with no IT, complementing an asymptotic result of Loh and Sudakov (2007). We describe new and smaller counterexamples to a list coloring conjecture of Reed (1999), which was originally disproved by Bohman and Holzman (2002). We disprove a conjecture of Aharoni, Alon, and Berger (2016) about IT's in graphs without large induced stars. We answer negatively a question of Aharoni, Holzman, Howard, and Sprüssel (2015) about extremal graphs with no IT, but we also prove that a useful variation of their question does hold.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207