MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416019587 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03234

The structure of $Δ(1, 2, 2)$-free tournaments

2025· preprint· W4416019587 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seokbeom Kim, Taite LaGrange, Mathieu Rundström, Arpan Sadhukhan, Sophie Spirkl

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Basic ScienceNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsTournamentUpper and lower boundsTransitive relationHomogeneousSet (abstract data type)Digraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the list of tournaments $S$ for which the complete structural description for tournaments excluding $S$ as a subtournament is known. Specifically, let $Δ(1, 2, 2)$ be a tournament on five vertices obtained from a cyclic triangle by substituting a two-vertex tournament for two of its vertices. In this paper, we show that tournaments excluding $Δ(1, 2, 2)$ as a subtournament are either isomorphic to one of three small tournaments, obtained from a transitive tournament by reversing edges in vertex-disjoint directed paths, or obtained from a smaller tournament with the same property by applying one of two operations. In particular, one of these operations creates a homogeneous set that induces a subtournament isomorphic to one of three fixed tournaments, and the other creates a homogeneous pair such that their union induces a subtournament isomorphic to a fixed tournament. As an application of this result, we present an upper bound for the chromatic number, a lower bound for the size of a largest transitive subtournament, and a lower bound for the number of vertex-disjoint cyclic triangles for such tournaments. The bounds that we present are all best possible.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.004
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designObservational
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 venueArXiv.orgSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207