MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computational Analysis of Certified Reinforcement Numbers Across Specialized Graph Classes

2025· article· en· W4413607421 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsGraphReinforcementCertificationMathematics educationCombinatoricsPsychologySocial psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A certified dominating set D of a graph G is a dominating set in which every vertex in D must have either no neighbors or at least two neighbors in V\D, where V denotes the set of all vertices in G. A certified domination number of G represented by γcer(G) is defined as the smallest size of such a certified dominating set of G. The reinforcement number r(G) is defined to be the cardinality of minimum number of edges F ⊂ E(Gˉ) such that γ(G + F) < γ(G), broadened this parameter to encompass certified domination and we define certified reinforcement number of a graph G, rcer(G) to be the cardinality of the minimum number of edges F ⊂ E(¯G) such that γcer(G + F) < γcer(G) that is minimum number of edges to be added to decrease the certified domination number of G at least by one. In this paper, we characterize the graph G for which rcer(G) = 1 and determine the values of certified reinforcement number for various classes of graphs.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.309 · 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