MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404725980 · doi:10.1002/rsa.21272

Typical Structure of Hereditary Graph Families. II. Exotic Examples

2024· article· en· W4404725980 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsGraphComputer scienceGenealogyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A graph is ‐free if it does not contain an induced subgraph isomorphic to . The study of the typical structure of ‐free graphs was initiated by Erdős, Kleitman, and Rothschild (1976), who have shown that almost all ‐free graphs are bipartite. Since then the typical structure of ‐free graphs has been determined for several families of graphs , including complete graphs, trees, and cycles. Recently, Reed and Scott proposed a conjectural description of the typical structure of ‐free graphs for all graphs , which extends all previously known results in the area. We construct an infinite family of graphs for which the Reed–Scott conjecture fails, and use the methods we developed in the prequel paper Norin and Yuditsky (2024) to describe the typical structure of ‐free graphs for graphs in this family. Using similar techniques, we construct an infinite family of graphs for which the maximum size of a homogenous set in a typical ‐free graph is sublinear in the number of vertices, answering a question of Loebl et al. (2010) and Kang et al. (2014).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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