MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412648266 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cdm.v13i1.62452

Bounds for the boxicity of Mycielski graphs

2018· article· en· W4412648266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akira Kamibeppu

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to Discrete Mathematics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A box in Euclidean k-space is the Cartesian product of k closed intervals on the real line. The boxicity of a graph G, denoted by box(G), is the minimum nonnegative integer k such that G can be isomorphic to the intersection graph of a family of boxes in Euclidean k-space. Mycielski introduced an interesting graph operation that extends a graph G to a new graph M(G), called the Mycielski graph of G. In this paper we observe the behavior of boxicity of Mycielski graphs. We see that box(M(G)) is at least box(G) for a graph G, and hence we are interested in whether the boxicity of Mycielski graph of G is more than that of G or not. Here we give bounds for the boxicity of Mycielski graphs in terms of the number of universal vertices of G and the edge clique cover number of the complement of G. Further observations determine the boxicity of the Mycielski graph M(G) if G has no universal vertices or odd universal vertices and box(G) is equal to the edge clique cover number of the complement of G. We also present relations between the Mycielski graph M(G) and its generalizations M3(G) and Mr(G) in the context of boxicity, which will encourage us to calculate the boxicity of M(G) and M3(G).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContributions to Discrete MathematicsSame topicGraph Labeling and Dimension ProblemsFrench-language works237,207