MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413104359 · doi:10.1016/j.dam.2025.08.006

Trail Trap: A variant of Partizan Edge Geography

2025· article· en· W4413104359 on OpenAlexafffund
Calum Buchanan, MacKenzie Carr, Alexander Clifton, Stephen G. Hartke, Vesna Iršič Chenoweth, Nicholas Sieger, Rebecca Whitman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Applied Mathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCombinatorics FoundationInstitute for Basic ScienceGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSEuropean Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTrap (plumbing)MathematicsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionCombinatoricsGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a two-player game played on undirected graphs called Trail Trap , which is a variant of a game known as Partizan Edge Geography . One player starts by choosing any edge and moving a token from one endpoint to the other; the other player then chooses a different edge and does the same. Alternating turns, each player moves their token along an unused edge from its current vertex to an adjacent vertex, until one player cannot move and loses. We present an algorithm to determine which player has a winning strategy when the graph is a tree and partially characterize the trees on which a given player wins. Additionally, we show that it is NP-hard to determine if Player 2 has a winning strategy on Trail Trap from the starting position, even for connected bipartite planar graphs with maximum degree 4. We determine which player has a winning strategy for certain subclasses of complete bipartite graphs and grid graphs, and we propose several open problems for further study.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Applied MathematicsSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207