MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400596821 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cdm.v16i1.62717

Coloring permutation-gain graphs

2021· article· en· W4400596821 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to Discrete Mathematics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsGreedy coloringEdge coloringGraph coloringFractional coloringComplete coloringDiscrete mathematicsList coloringPermutation graphGraphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correspondence colorings of graphs were introduced in 2018 by Dvořák and Postle as a generalization of list colorings of graphs which generalizes ordinary graph coloring. Kim and Ozeki observed that correspondence colorings generalize various notions of signed-graph colorings which again generalizes ordinary graph colorings. In this note we state how correspondence colorings generalize Zaslavsky's notion of gain-graph colorings and then formulate a new coloring theory of permutation-gain graphs that sits between gain-graph coloring and correspondence colorings. Like Zaslavsky's gain-graph coloring, our new notion of coloring permutation-gain graphs has well defined chromatic polynomials and lifts to colorings of the regular covering graph of a permutation-gain graph.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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