Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate the lazy burning process for Latin squares by studying their associated hypergraphs. In lazy burning, a set of vertices in a hypergraph is initially burned, and that burning spreads to neighboring vertices over time via a specified propagation rule. The lazy burning number is the minimum number of initially burned vertices that eventually burns all vertices. The hypergraphs associated with Latin squares include the ‐uniform hypergraph, whose vertices and hyperedges correspond to the entries and lines (i.e., sets of rows, columns, or symbols) of the Latin square, respectively, and the 3‐uniform hypergraph, which has vertices corresponding to the lines of the Latin square and hyperedges induced by its entries. Using sequences of vertices that together form a vertex cover, we show that for a Latin square of order , the lazy burning number of its ‐uniform hypergraph is bounded below by and above by These bounds are shown to be tight using cyclic Latin squares and powers of intercalates. For the 3‐uniform hypergraph case, we show that the lazy burning number of Latin squares is one plus its shortest connected chain of subsquares. We determine the lazy burning number of Latin square hypergraphs derived from finitely generated groups. We finish with open problems.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".