MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412617749 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cdm.v12i1.62531

Closing the Gap: Eternal Domination on 3 x n Grids

2017· article· en· W4412617749 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Margaret-Ellen Messinger

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to Discrete Mathematics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClosing (real estate)CombinatoricsMathematicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The domination number for grid graphs has been a long studied problem; the first results appeared over thirty years ago [Jacobson 1984] and the final results appeared in 2013 [Goncalves 2013]. Grid graphs are a natural class of graphs to consider for the eternal dominating set problem as the domination number forms a lower bound for the eternal domination number. The 3 x n grid has been considered in several papers, and the difference between the upper and lower bounds for the eternal domination number in the all-guards move model has been reduced to a linear function of n. In this short paper, we provide an upper bound for the eternal domination number which exceeds the lower bound by at most 3.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContributions to Discrete MathematicsSame topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207