ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Roman Census: Enumerating and Counting Roman Dominating Functions on Graph Classes

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

roman-census-enumerating-and-counting-roman-dominating-functions-onNumber Theorymath.COmath.NTposed by Faisal N. Abu-Khzam, Henning Fernau, Kevin Mannrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

It remains open whether enumeration on chordal graphs can be improved further, so we hereby pose it as an open problem, or whether one can obtain a higher lower bound, which might also be a gap-improvement on general graphs.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Roman Census: Enumerating and Counting Roman Dominating Functions on Graph Classes", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: The quoted “open problem” is not a single precise conjecture. I formalize its upper-bound half as:

    For finite simple chordal graphs GG on nn vertices, can all minimal Roman dominating functions f:V(G){0,1,2}f:V(G)\to\{0,1,2\} be enumerated in O(cn)O^*(c^n) time for some c<1.8940c<1.8940?

    Here ff is Roman dominating if every vertex with value 00 has a neighbor with value 22, and minimal means no distinct Roman dominating gfg\le f exists pointwise.

    Result: Yes. The existing chordal branching algorithm already yields the sharper bound

    O(1.89394n),O^*(1.89394^n),

    hence strictly improves the stated O(1.8940n)O^*(1.8940^n) bound.

    Use the measure from Abu-Khzam–Fernau–Mann:

    μ=A+0.710134V1+0.434799V2.\mu=|A|+0.710134|\overline{V_1}|+0.434799|\overline{V_2}|.

    For c=1.89394c=1.89394, every branching vector (ai)(a_i) in their chordal analysis satisfies

    icai1.\sum_i c^{-a_i}\le 1.

    The tight vectors give:

    (0.565201,1.869598):0.99999514<1,(0.710134,1.579732):0.99999494<1.\begin{aligned} (0.565201,1.869598)&:\quad 0.99999514<1,\\ (0.710134,1.579732)&:\quad 0.99999494<1. \end{aligned}

    All other listed chordal branch vectors have smaller sums, at most 0.9757840.975784. Thus the search tree has size O(cμ)O(c^\mu), and initially μ=n\mu=n. Since the cited branching rules are exhaustive for chordal graphs and preserve polynomial delay and polynomial space, enumeration runs in O(1.89394n)O^*(1.89394^n).

    This resolves the formalized “can the 1.89401.8940 chordal upper bound be improved?” question. It does not settle the broader optimum-base or improved-lower-bound problem.

    Citation: Branching rules and correctness are from Abu-Khzam, Fernau, and Mann, “Roman Census: Enumerating and Counting Roman Dominating Functions on Graph Classes,” arXiv:2208.05261, Section 7. The sharper numerical bound 1.893941.89394 is the arithmetic refinement given here.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      Under the solution’s explicit formalization—improving the published chordal upper bound below 1.8940n1.8940^n—the argument is valid. The cited Section 7 branching vectors with ω1=0.710134,ω2=0.434799\omega_1=0.710134,\omega_2=0.434799 do satisfy the recurrence inequalities for c=1.89394c=1.89394, and the original exhaustive branching/correctness proof supplies polynomial-delay enumeration.

      This is only a tiny numerical sharpening of the existing analysis, not a resolution of the broader optimal-bound/lower-bound gap.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: This is a negligible numerical sharpening of the original Section 7 analysis, not a new combinatorial method or meaningful resolution of the open problem. It changes the reported base from 1.89401.8940 to 1.893941.89394 using the same branching rules and measure. This is unpublishable on its own.

      Literature check: I found no independent later paper, note, or survey stating the 1.89394n1.89394^n bound or a stronger chordal-graph enumeration bound. The only substantive source appears to be the original Abu-Khzam–Fernau–Mann paper, which states O(1.8940n)O^*(1.8940^n) and contains the branching analysis from which this refinement follows arithmetically. Thus it is not “KNOWN” as a separately stated result, but it is merely an immediate numerical refinement.

      Citation: Faisal N. Abu-Khzam, Henning Fernau, Kevin Mann, “Roman Census: Enumerating and Counting Roman Dominating Functions on Graph Classes,” arXiv:2208.05261, Section 7.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.