MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7081942273 · doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2025.104235

Odd-Ramsey numbers of complete bipartite graphs

2025· article· en· W7081942273 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Combinatorics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsEuropean Research CouncilNational Science and Technology CouncilEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsBipartite graphComplete bipartite graphGraphUpper and lower boundsDimension (graph theory)Binary number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his study of graph codes, Alon introduced the concept of the odd-Ramsey number of a family of graphs H in K n , defined as the minimum number of colours needed to colour the edges of K n so that every copy of a graph H ∈ H intersects some colour class in an odd number of edges. In this paper, we focus on complete bipartite graphs. First, we completely resolve the problem when H is the family of all spanning complete bipartite graphs on n vertices. We then focus on its subfamilies, that is, { K t , n − t : t ∈ T } for a fixed set of integers T ⊆ [ ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ ] . We prove that the odd-Ramsey problem is equivalent to determining the maximum dimension of a linear binary code avoiding codewords of given weights, and leverage known results from coding theory to deduce asymptotically tight bounds in our setting. We conclude with bounds for the odd-Ramsey numbers of fixed (that is, non-spanning) complete bipartite subgraphs.

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)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 venueEuropean Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207