MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extending Certified Domination: Bondage Numbers in Generalized Petersen Graphs

2025· article· W4415914271 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. Navamani, N. Sumathi, A. Ramachandran, N. Vijaya, A. Vijayalakshmi, S. Annadurai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominating setVertex (graph theory)Domination analysisGraphCardinality (data modeling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper extends the concept of bondage numbers to certified domination, introducing the certified bondage number of a graph. A certified dominating set R is a dominating set of a graph H, if every vertex in R has either zero or at least two neighbours in V\R, where V is the vertex set of H. The minimum cardinality of certified dominating set of H is the certified domination number of H denoted by γcer(H). The bondage number b(H) is defined to be the cardinality of least number of edges F ⊂ E(H) such that γ(H − F) > γ(H). Motivated by this parameter, we extended this concept on certified domination number and defined certified bondage number of a graph H, b+cer(H) [b−cer(H)] to be the cardinality of the least number of edges F ⊂ E(H) such that γcer(H−F) > γcer(H) [γcer(H−F) < γcer(H)] that is minimum number of edges to be removed to increase (or decrease) the certified domination number of H. In this paper, we establish the values of certified bondage number for generalised Petersen graphs P(n, k), where k = 1, 2, as well as for certain 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.

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)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207