MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401748186 · doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2024.104043

The Nash-Williams orientation theorem for graphs with countably many ends

2024· article· en· W4401748186 on OpenAlexaff
Amena Assem, Marcel Koloschin, Max Pitz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Combinatorics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsOrientation (vector space)Discrete mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nash-Williams proved in 1960 that a finite graph admits a k -arc-connected orientation if and only if it is 2 k -edge-connected, and conjectured that the same result should hold for all infinite graphs, too. Progress on Nash-Williams’s problem was made by C. Thomassen, who proved in 2016 that all 8 k -edge-connected infinite graphs admit a k -arc connected orientation, and by the first author, who recently showed that edge-connectivity of 4 k suffices for locally-finite, 1-ended graphs. In the present article, we establish the optimal bound 2 k in Nash-Williams’s conjecture for all locally finite graphs with countably many ends.

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)0.003
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 score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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