MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411319863 · doi:10.1145/3717823.3718265

Vizing’s Theorem in Near-Linear Time

2025· article· en· W4411319863 on OpenAlexafffund
Sepehr Assadi, Soheil Behnezhad, Sayan Bhattacharya, Martín Costa, Shay Solomon, Tianyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
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
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematics

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 Õ(m√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 Õ(n2) by [Assadi, 2024] and Õ(mn1/3) by [Bhattacharya, Carmon, Costa, Solomon and Zhang, 2024] (and subsequently to Õ(mn1/4) 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(mlogΔ) 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.009

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207