MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403324132 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05240

Vizing's Theorem in Near-Linear Time

2024· preprint· en· W4403324132 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sepehr Assadi, Soheil Behnezhad, Sayan Bhattacharya, Martín Costa, Shay Solomon, Tianyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionSimons Institute for the Theory of Computing, University of California BerkeleyUnited States-Israel Binational Science FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vizing's theorem states that any $n$-vertex $m$-edge graph of maximum degree $Δ$ can be edge colored using at most $Δ+ 1$ different colors [Vizing, 1964]. Vizing's original proof is algorithmic and shows that such an edge coloring can be found in $O(mn)$ time. This was subsequently improved to $\tilde O(m\sqrt{n})$ time, independently by [Arjomandi, 1982] and by [Gabow et al., 1985]. Very recently, independently and concurrently, using randomization, this runtime bound was further improved to $\tilde{O}(n^2)$ by [Assadi, 2024] and $\tilde O(mn^{1/3})$ by [Bhattacharya, Carmon, Costa, Solomon and Zhang, 2024] (and subsequently to $\tilde O(mn^{1/4})$ time by [Bhattacharya, Costa, Solomon and Zhang, 2024]). In this paper, we present a randomized algorithm that computes a $(Δ+1)$-edge coloring in near-linear time -- in fact, only $O(m\logΔ)$ time -- with high probability, giving a near-optimal algorithm for this fundamental problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207