MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414581271 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127-06

The {2}-domination in rooted product graphs

2025· article· en· W4414581271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K.S. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphVertex (graph theory)Product (mathematics)Graph productLine graphBlock graphConnectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>A <span class="math inline">\(\{2\}\)</span>-dominating function (<span class="math inline">\(\{2 \}\)</span>DF) on a graph <span class="math inline">\(G=(V(G),E(G))\)</span> is a function <span class="math inline">\(f : V(G) \rightarrow \{0,1,2 \}\)</span> such that <span class="math inline">\(f(N[v]) \geq 2\)</span> for every <span class="math inline">\(v \in V(G)\)</span>, where <span class="math inline">\(N[v]\)</span> is the closed neighourhood of <span class="math inline">\(v\)</span>. The <span class="math inline">\(\{2\}\)</span>-domination number of <span class="math inline">\(G\)</span> is the minimum weight <span class="math inline">\(\omega(f) = \sum\limits_{v \in V(G)} f(v)\)</span> among all <span class="math inline">\(\{2 \}\)</span>-dominating functions on <span class="math inline">\(G\)</span>. In this article, we prove that if <span class="math inline">\(G\)</span> and <span class="math inline">\(H\)</span> are graphs with no isolated vertex, then for any vertex <span class="math inline">\(v \in V(H)\)</span> there are six closed formulas for the <span class="math inline">\(\{2\}\)</span>-domination number of the rooted product graph <span class="math inline">\(G \circ_v H\)</span>. We also characterize the graph <span class="math inline">\(G\)</span> and <span class="math inline">\(H\)</span> that satisfy each of these formulas.</p>

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207