Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let G be a graph and let 0 ≤ p , q and p + q ≤ 1 . Suppose that each vertex of G gets a weight of 1 with probability p , 1 2 with probability q , and 0 with probability 1 − p − q , and vertex weight probabilities are independent. The \textit{fractional vertex cover reliability} of G , denoted by FRel ( G ; p , q ) , is the probability that the sum of weights at the end-vertices of every edge in G is at least 1 . In this article, we first provide various computational formulas for FRel ( G ; p , q ) considering general graphs, basic graphs, and graph operations. Secondly, we determine the graphs which maximize FRel ( G ; p , q ) for all values of p and q in the classes of trees, connected unicyclic and bicyclic graphs with fixed order, and determine the graphs which minimize it in the classes of trees and connected unicyclic graphs with fixed order. Our results on optimal graphs extend some known results in the literature about independent sets, and the tools we developed in this paper have the potential to solve the optimality problem in other classes of graphs as well.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".