Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The \emph{Optimist}: Towards Fully Automated Graph Theory Research

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Optimist is an agent that, starting from three tiny graphs and nine counterexamples, rediscovers classical theorems on the independence number.

desk verdict The Optimist is a reproducible but incremental extension of TxGraffiti whose case study only rediscovers classical bounds on a dozen graphs; the 'fully automated' framing is not supported by the human-in-the-loop experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09158 v1 pith:KYODNUZS submitted 2024-11-14 cs.AI math.CO

Randy Davila This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AImath.CO
keywords automatedconjecturingreasoninggraphtheorymixed-integerprogrammingindependencenumbertouchheuristiccounterexample-drivenrefinementTxGraffiti
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces the Optimist, an automated agent that proposes graph-theory conjectures by fitting linear bounds to a table of graph invariants and then filtering the results with heuristics that prize sharpness and generality. The central demonstration is a case study on the independence number: from just three seed graphs and nine counterexamples supplied by a human 'Pessimist', the agent's final list of learned theorems includes classical results such as the bound $\alpha \le n - \delta$ (independence number at most order minus minimum degree) and the equality $\alpha = n - \mu$ for connected bipartite graphs, which is equivalent to the König–Gallai theorem. The larger ambition is a closed loop, called GraphMind, in which a machine Pessimist finds counterexamples automatically, so conjecture generation and testing run without human intervention. Sympathetically read, the paper claims that optimization-driven conjecture generation with a memory of invariants can recover foundational results and is a viable route toward fully automated mathematical discovery.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a conjectured inequality of the form $\alpha \le \sum_j w_j X_j + b$, produced by a mixed-integer program that chooses weights and intercept while maximizing the number of graphs on which the bound is exactly tight. That count is the touch number, and it is the system's measure of significance. The Hazel heuristic keeps high-touch conjectures, the Morgan heuristic discards a conjecture when a same-conclusion conjecture has a more general hypothesis, and the weak- and strong-Smokey heuristics retain conjectures that cover new equality (sharp) graphs. An incremental memory structure recomputes all invariants when a counterexample is added, and a list of known theorems lets the agent stop proposing results already in its repository. Together these components form the Optimist's claim to autonomy: generate, filter, update, and regenerate without a human needing to judge each individual candidate.

What would settle it

Replace the nine human-chosen counterexamples in the case study with the first nine connected graphs on four or more vertices in a fixed enumeration, keeping the same three seed graphs, same invariants, and same MIP objective; if the final list no longer contains all six statements shown in the agent's learned theorems, the rediscovery was produced by the choice of counterexamples rather than by the agent's filtering machinery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Optimist's pipeline—mixed-integer programming that maximizes equality instances, followed by the Hazel, Morgan, and weak/strong Smokey filters—can turn a tiny curated knowledge base into statements that match established theory. After beginning with $K_2$, $K_3$, and $P_3$ and receiving nine counterexamples, the agent settled on six conjectures for the independence number $\alpha$, including $\alpha \le n - \delta$ for connected graphs, $\alpha \le n - \mu$ for connected graphs, $\alpha = n - \mu$ for connected bipartite graphs, $\alpha \ge \Delta$ for connected bipartite graphs, $\alpha \le \mu$ for connected regular graphs, and $\alpha \ge n/2$ for connected bipartite graphs. The author presents these as learned theorems and cites them as evidence that the Optimist aligns autonomously with known mathematics rather than merely memorizing its input. The equality for bipartite graphs is, up to the Gallai identity, König's theorem, and the paper treats its recovery as the central success of the agent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the touch number—the count of graphs in the system's small, hand-picked collection where a conjectured inequality is exactly tight—measures mathematical significance, a premise the paper never tests against a larger or independent set of graphs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pipeline works as claimed, the same generate-filter-update loop can be pointed at any graph invariant by changing the target column, producing candidate upper bounds, lower bounds, and equalities with no new algorithm design.
  • Because convergent upper and lower bounds are returned as equalities, the system can surface identities (such as the bipartite $\alpha = n - \mu$ formula) as well as inequalities, which most earlier enumerative conjecture generators do not do directly.
  • A machine Pessimist that searches for counterexample graphs would close the loop, so GraphMind could run indefinitely, accumulating graphs and refining conjectures with no human in the loop—though the paper notes it would not prove the statements.
  • The open-source notebooks make the exact experiment reproducible, so the case study can be extended to larger graph corpora and other invariants without reimplementation.
  • If the learned theorems generalize, the system provides a fast, low-cost way to generate publishable conjecture lists for new invariants, in the same family as earlier published conjectures from the predecessor system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest test of the agent is not whether it rediscovers classical results—on the tiny knowledge base used, all six learned statements are true—but whether its top-ranked novel conjectures survive on a held-out sample of graphs; the paper does not run that test.
  • The conclusion credits König's theorem, but the reference list contains no citation for it; the rediscovery claim therefore relies on the author's own identification of the learned equality with the König–Gallai identity.
  • If the author-curated counterexamples were replaced by an automatic enumeration of small connected graphs, the stability of the six learned theorems would separate the contribution of the MIP-and-touch-number machinery from the contribution of the human choosing which graphs to feed in.
  • The GraphMind vision implies that an autonomous loop can silently converge on a statement that is true for every graph it has seen yet false for larger graphs, because bounded counterexample search cannot certify generality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Optimist, an automated conjecture-generation system for graph theory that uses mixed-integer programming (MIP) to fit linear bounds on a target invariant, then filters the resulting candidate inequalities with heuristics based on touch number, hypothesis generality, and sharp-graph coverage. The system maintains a knowledge base of graphs and invariants and can be updated with new graphs and known theorems. The central evidence is a case study on the independence number, starting from K2, K3, and P3, in which a human supplies nine counterexample graphs and marks one conjectured bound as a known theorem; the paper then reports six 'learned theorems', all classical bounds on the independence number, such as α ≤ n - δ and König's theorem α = n - μ for connected bipartite graphs. The paper argues that this demonstrates rediscovery of established results and takes a step toward fully automated graph-theory research, with a proposed future dueling-agent framework called GraphMind.

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the paper would make a modest but useful contribution to automated conjecture generation: it shows that a MIP-based fitting procedure with touch-number filtering can recover a handful of simple, classical inequalities from a very small curated dataset, and it provides open-source code and notebooks for reproducibility. The strengths of the manuscript are its concrete algorithmic descriptions, the explicit MIP formulation in Section 3.3, the detailed code listings in the appendices, and the clear separation of the conjecture-generation pipeline from the (future) proof component. However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of any held-out validation, the entirely human-supplied counterexamples, the lack of a baseline comparison, and the absence of any genuinely novel conjecture or formal proof. The paper is better read as a system description and proof-of-concept demonstration than as an established claim of autonomous mathematical discovery.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Listing 10] The central rediscovery claim is not supported by the experiment as reported. The six statements in Listing 10 are fit and filtered on the same knowledge base of twelve graphs (three initial plus nine human-supplied counterexamples), and the touch number used by the Hazel, Morgan, and Smokey heuristics is computed on exactly that in-sample set. There is no held-out set, no cross-validation, and no baseline showing that arbitrary or randomized linear inequalities would be rejected by the same pipeline. Without such a control, the reader cannot distinguish robust rediscovery from overfitting to the author-curated graphs, so the claim that the system has 'learned' these theorems needs a larger-corpus or held-out check.
  2. [Sections 3.5 and 4.2] The autonomy claim is materially weakened by the interactive protocol. All nine counterexamples in Figure 3 are supplied by the user, and Listing 9 shows the user manually adding the top-ranked conjecture to known_theorems, after which the agent removes it from its output. The paper describes these as 'minimal human intervention', but the human is selecting the data that drives the MIP refits and deleting the most prominent rediscovered result. The experiment therefore demonstrates a human-in-the-loop refinement process, not the autonomous or 'minimal intervention' behavior promised in the abstract. The authors should either automate the counterexample step, or explicitly frame the case study as human-mediated and adjust the autonomy claims accordingly.
  3. [Listing 10, Section 4.3] The statements in Listing 10 are labeled 'Theorem' but are unproven empirical inequalities. The paper itself states in Section 4.3 that the system is 'unable to formally prove conjectures', so calling these outputs theorems is misleading. They should be labeled empirical conjectures unless formal proofs or machine-checked verification are supplied. This is a load-bearing point because the abstract's claim that the system 'rediscover[s] established theorems' conflates fitting known inequalities with proving or establishing them.
  4. [Appendix A, Listing 11] The MIP code in make_linear_conjectures imposes constraints that are not part of the formulation described in Section 3.3. Specifically, for the upper bound it adds `prob += lpSum([ws_upper[i]*Xs_upper[i][j] for i in range(len(others))]) >= b_upper`, and similarly for the lower bound, in addition to the stated inequality and big-M equality constraints. These extra constraints are not explained in the text and could change the fitted weights and intercepts. Please clarify whether they are intentional restrictions, and if so, state them in Section 3.3; if they are a typo, correct the code and rerun the experiment.
  5. [Abstract, Section 4] The abstract claims that the Optimist 'generates conjectures that both rediscover established theorems and propose novel inequalities', but the case study in Section 4 presents only classical bounds already known in graph theory, and no genuinely novel conjecture is identified or examined. The paper should either exhibit a novel inequality produced by the system, with some evidence of its validity or interest, or soften the claim to say that the system generates candidate inequalities, some of which coincide with known results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The term 'Dalamatian heuristic' should be 'Dalmatian heuristic' to match Section 2.1 and the literature.
  2. [Appendix B] The function filter_false_conjectures is defined twice with identical bodies; the duplication should be removed.
  3. [Section 5, first paragraph] The name 'K˝onig' is a rendering artifact; it should be 'König'.
  4. [Listing 7 and Listing 10] Listing 7 states an equality conjecture, independence_number = order - minimum_degree, while the first theorem in Listing 10 is the corresponding inequality. Clarify whether the equality in Listing 7 is a typo, and if not, explain how the same bound becomes an inequality after refinement.
  5. [Figure 3] The caption mentions nontrivial counterexamples (c) and (e), but the figure itself is not rendered in the manuscript text; the graphs should be named or drawn so the reader can see which counterexamples are being discussed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'learned theorems' are in-sample MIP fits rather than out-of-sample predictions, but the selected statements are externally true and were not fed to the system as inputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (MIP formulation) and Section 4.2, Listing 10]
    "For the upper bound, we solve: Yi ≤ Σ_{j=1}^k w_upper_j X_ij + b_upper, for each graph i."

    The final 'learned theorems' in Listing 10 (e.g., α ≤ n − δ for connected graphs) are the very linear bounds produced by this MIP on the knowledge base. The same knowledge base—three starting graphs plus nine user-supplied counterexamples—is used to filter false conjectures and to rank by touch number, so the demonstration that the system 'rediscovered' classical theorems is an in-sample report of the fitted inequalities, not a test on unseen graphs. The reduction is partial rather than total: the MIP could have selected other in-sample bounds, and the listed statements are independently true classical results, but the paper offers no evidence beyond the fitted data that the touch-number heuristic selects generally valid statements.

full rationale

The paper is a transparent system description: the Optimist fits linear bounds with a MIP that maximizes equality instances, filters them with the Hazel/Morgan/Smokey heuristics, and reports the survivors as conjectures. No theorem is claimed to be proven, and the listed 'learned theorems' are known classical inequalities that were not inserted into the initial knowledge base. The main circularity-adjacent issue is that the evaluation of the discovery is entirely in-sample: the MIP constraints and the false-conjecture filter force every reported bound to hold on the same 12 graphs used for fitting, and the touch number that ranks conjectures is computed on that same set. That makes the 'rediscovery' demonstration a fit report rather than a validated prediction. This is not a self-definitional or self-citation collapse, because the system was not given the target theorems as inputs and the selected statements have independent mathematical content; a held-out corpus or an external proof would settle the reliability of the touch-number heuristic. Accordingly the circularity score is modest, well below the reader's 8, but above zero because the central demonstration is in-sample by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small hand-selected dataset, arbitrary bounds on MIP variables, and the unverified assumption that equality frequency on this sample indicates mathematical importance. No novel mathematical entity is introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • MIP weight bounds = [-4, 4]
    In Appendix A, Listing 11, w_upper and w_lower are bounded between -4 and 4. This restricts conjectures to small-coefficient linear bounds and is not justified theoretically.
  • MIP intercept bounds = [-3, 3]
    In Listing 11, b_upper and b_lower are bounded between -3 and 3, further constraining the form of generated bounds.
  • Big-M constant = 1000
    The equality relaxation uses M=1000 in Listing 11; an arbitrary large constant.
  • Rational approximation denominator = 10
    Fitted weights and intercepts are converted with Fraction(...).limit_denominator(10), which can change which graphs satisfy the inequality.
  • Minimum touch threshold = 1
    The Hazel heuristic drops conjectures with touch <= 1 (see Optimist.conjecture in Appendix C). This threshold is set without analysis.
  • Initial graph set = K2, K3, P3 plus 9 counterexamples
    The case study uses only 12 hand-picked graphs, all selected by the author, which determines which bounds the MIP can discover.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Touch number is a proxy for mathematical significance
    Section 3.5 asserts that high touch numbers indicate 'potentially fundamental relationships' without comparing against any external benchmark.
  • domain assumption Validity on a tiny training set supports conjecture quality
    Listing 10 labels empirical inequalities as 'theorems' after validating them on 12 graphs only; no proof or larger data is provided.
  • standard math MIP solves are optimal and correct
    The paper relies on PuLP to solve the MIP but reports no solver settings, optimality gaps, or validation of solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The \emph{Optimist}: Towards Fully Automated Graph Theory Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYODNUZS

@misc{pith2026241109158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The \emphOptimist: Towards Fully Automated Graph Theory Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYODNUZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09158}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces the \emph{Optimist}, an autonomous system developed to advance automated conjecture generation in graph theory. Leveraging mixed-integer programming (MIP) and heuristic methods, the \emph{Optimist} generates conjectures that both rediscover established theorems and propose novel inequalities. Through a combination of memory-based computation and agent-like adaptability, the \emph{Optimist} iteratively refines its conjectures by integrating new data, enabling a feedback process with minimal human (\emph{or machine}) intervention. Initial experiments reveal the \emph{Optimist}'s potential to uncover foundational results in graph theory, as well as to produce conjectures of interest for future exploration. This work also outlines the \emph{Optimist}'s evolving integration with a counterpart agent, the \emph{Pessimist} (a human \emph{or machine} agent), to establish a dueling system that will drive fully automated graph theory research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. In Reverie Together: Ten Years of Mathematical Discovery with a Machine Collaborator

    cs.DM 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10 partial

    Four machine-generated open conjectures relating independence, zero forcing, domination, and matching invariants in graphs are presented, each with empirical support but no proof.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Davila, R.: Automated conjecturing in mathematics with TxGraffiti. Discov. Artif. 359, 290–302 (2024) 28

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The Essential Turing, 395–432 (2004)

    Turing, A.: Intelligent machinery. The Essential Turing, 395–432 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Simon, H.A., Newell, A.: Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in opera- tions research. Oper. Res. 6, 1–10 (1958)

    1958

  4. [4]

    Computation, Logic, Philosophy, 63–75 (1990)

    Wang, H.: Computer theorem proving and artificial intelligence. Computation, Logic, Philosophy, 63–75 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    In: 7th Int

    Fajtlowicz, S.: On conjectures of graffiti, part V. In: 7th Int. Quadrennial Conf. Graph Theory, Comb. Appl., vol. 1, pp. 367–376 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Fajtlowicz, S., Waller, W.: On two conjectures of graffiti. Congr. Numer. (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Chung, F.: The average distance is not more than the independence number. J. Graph Theory 12, 229–235 (1988)

    1988

  8. [8]

    Alon, N., Seymour, P.: A counter-example to the rank-coloring conjecture. J. Graph Theory 13, 523–525 (1989)

    1989

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    In: 4th Proceedings Clemson Miniconference (1989)

    Fajtlowicz, S.: On conjectures and methods of graffiti. In: 4th Proceedings Clemson Miniconference (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    Technical report, University of Puget Sound Dept

    Beezer, R.A., Riegsecker, J., Smith, B.A.: On conjectures of graffiti concerning regular graphs. Technical report, University of Puget Sound Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science (1989). Technical Report No. 89-1

    1989

  3. [11]

    Ars Comb

    Favaron, O., Maheo, M., Sacle, J.-F.: Some results on conjectures of graffiti - 1. Ars Comb. 29, 90–106 (1990)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Technical report, Universite de Paris-Sud (1991)

    Favaron, O., Maheo, M., Sacle, J.-F.: Some results on conjectures of graffiti - iii. Technical report, Universite de Paris-Sud (1991). Research Report No. 670, LRI

    1991

  5. [13]

    Favaron, O., Maheo, M., Sacle, J.-F.: On the residue of a graph. J. Graph Theory 15, 39–64 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    Discrete Math

    Favaron, O., Maheo, M., Sacle, J.-F.: Some eigenvalue properties in graphs (conjectures of graffiti - ii). Discrete Math. 111, 197–220 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Discrete Math

    Griggs, J.R., Kleitman, D.J.: Independence and the havel-hakimi residue. Discrete Math. 127, 209–212 (1994)

    1994

  8. [16]

    Ars Comb

    Fajtlowicz, S., McColgan, T., Reid, T.J., Staton, W.: Ramsey numbers of induced regular subgraphs. Ars Comb. 39, 149–154 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    Wang, L.-X.: On one of graffiti’s conjecture 583. Appl. Math. Mech. 18(4), 357– 360 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    Discrete 29 Appl

    Firby, P., Haviland, J.: Independence and average distance in graphs. Discrete 29 Appl. Math. 75, 27–37 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Ars Comb

    Bollobas, B., Erdos, P.: Graphs of extremal weights. Ars Comb. 50, 255–233 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Discrete Math

    Bollobas, B., Riordan, O.M.: On some conjectures of graffiti. Discrete Math. 179, 223–230 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Caro, Y.: Colorability, frequency and graffiti-119. J. Comb. Math. Comb. Comput. 27, 129–134 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Dankelmann, P., Swart, H., Oellermann, O.: On three conjectures of graffiti. J. Comb. Math. Comb. Comput. 26, 131–137 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Jelen, F.: k-independence and the k-residue of a graph. J. Graph Theory 32, 241–249 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Linear Algebra Appl

    Codenotti, B., Del Corso, G., Manzini, G.: Matrix rank and communication complexity. Linear Algebra Appl. 304, 193–200 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Discrete Math

    Beezer, R.A., Riegsecker, J., Smith, B.A.: Using minimum degree to bound average distance. Discrete Math. 226, 365–371 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    MATCH Commun

    Favaron, O., Maheo, M., Sacle, J.-F.: The randic index and other graffiti parameters of graphs. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem.47, 7–23 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Linear Algebra Appl

    Zhang, X.-D.: On the two conjectures of graffiti. Linear Algebra Appl. 385, 369– 379 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Dankelmann, P., Dlamini, G., Swart, H.C.: Upper bounds on distance measures in k3,3-free graphs. Util. Math. 67, 205–221 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Hansen, P., Hertz, A., Kilani, R., Marcotte, O., Schindl, D.: Average distance and maximum induced forest. J. Graph Theory 60(1), 31–54 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    MATCH Commun

    Cygan, M., Pilipczuk, M., Skrekovski, R.: On the inequality between radius and rankic index for graphs. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 67, 451–466 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Discrete Math

    Yue, J., Zhu, Y., Klavzar, S.: The annihilation number does not bound the 2- domination number from the above. Discrete Math. (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Fowler, P.: Fullerene graphs with more negative than positive eigenvalues; the exceptions that prove the rule of electron deficiency. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday 93, 1–3 (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Fowler, P., Hansen, P., Rogers, K.M., Fajtlowicz, S.: C60br24 as a chemical illustration of graph theoretical independence. J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 2 30 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    leapfrog, cylinder and fullerene graphs

    Fowler, P., Rodgers, K., Fajtlowicz, S., Hansen, P., Caporossi, G.: Facts and conjectures about fullerene graphs. leapfrog, cylinder and fullerene graphs. In: Proc. Euroconf. ALCOMA (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Fajtlowicz, S., Larson, C.: Graph-theoretical independence as a predictor of fullerene stability. Chem. Phys. Lett. 377, 485–490 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    In: Graphs and Discovery DIMACS: Ser

    Stevanovic, D., Caporossi, G.: On the (1,2)-spectral spread of fullerenes. In: Graphs and Discovery DIMACS: Ser. Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. vol. 69, pp. 395–370 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    In: Graphs and Discovery DIMACS: Ser

    Fajtlowicz, S.: On representation and characterization of buckminsterfullerene c60. In: Graphs and Discovery DIMACS: Ser. Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. vol. 69, pp. 127–135 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Fajtlowicz, S., John, P., Sach, H.: On maximum matchings and eigenvalues of benzenoid graphs. Croat. Chem. Acta 78, 195–201 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    MATCH Commun

    Doslic, T., Reti, T.: Spectral properties of fullerene graphs. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 66, 733–742 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Larson, C.E., Van Cleemput, N.: Automated conjecturing i: Fajtlowicz’s dalma- tian heuristic revisited. Artif. Intell. 231, 17–38 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Discrete Math

    Henning, M.A., Yeo, A.: Total domination and matching numbers in graphs with all vertices in triangles. Discrete Math. 313, 174–181 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Discrete Appl

    Henning, M.A., Yeo, A.: A new lower bound for the total domination number in graphs proving a graffiti.pc conjecture. Discrete Appl. Math. 173, 45–52 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Discrete Math

    Henning, M.A., Wash, K.: Matchings, path covers and domination. Discrete Math. 340, 3207–3216 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Discrete Appl

    Brimkov, B., Davila, R., Schuerger, H., Young, M.: Computer assisted discovery: Zero forcing vs vertex cover. Discrete Appl. Math. 359, 290–302 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Caro, Y., Davila, R., Pepper, R.: New results relating matching and independence. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 42, 921–935 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Australas

    Caro, Y., Davila, R., Henning, M.A., Pepper, R.: Conjectures of TxGraffiti: Independence, domination, and matchings. Australas. J. Comb. 84(2), 258–274 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Davila, R., Henning, M.A.: Zero forcing versus domination in cubic graphs. J. Comb. Optim. 41, 553–577 (2021) 31

    2021

  40. [48]

    Davila, R., Henning, M.A.: Total forcing versus total domination in cubic graphs. Appl. Math. Comput. 354, 385–395 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Davila, R., Henning, M.A.: Zero forcing in claw-free cubic graphs. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 43, 673–688 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Lenat, D.B.: The ubiquity of discovery. Artif. Intell. 9, 257–285 (1977)

    1977

  43. [51]

    Lenat, D.B.: On automated scientific theory formation: A case study using the am program. Mach. Intell. 9, 251–286 (1979)

    1979

  44. [52]

    Lenat, D.B.: The nature of heuristics. Artif. Intell. 9, 189–249 (1982)

    1982

  45. [53]

    Epstein, S.L.: Learning and discovery: One system’s search for mathematical knowledge. Comput. Intell. 4(1), 42–53 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Colton, S., Bundy, A., Walsh, T.: Automated concept formation in pure mathe- matics. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 786–791. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA (1999)

    1999

  47. [55]

    Colton, S.: Refactorable numbers—a machine invention. J. Integer Seq. 2, 99–12 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    Springer, Hei- delberg (2002)

    Colton, S.: Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics. Springer, Hei- delberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0147-5

    2002 doi

  49. [57]

    Discrete Math

    Caporossi, G., Hansen, P.: Variable neighborhood search for extremal graphs: 1 the autographix system. Discrete Math. 212(1–2), 29–44 (2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    Discrete Math

    Caporossi, G., Hansen, P.: Variable neighborhood search for extremal graphs: 5 three ways to automate finding conjectures. Discrete Math. 276(1–3), 81–94 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Discrete Appl

    M´ elot, H.: Facet defining inequalities among graph invariants: The system graphedron. Discrete Appl. Math. 156, 1875–1891 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    In: Operations Research Proceedings 2018: Selected Papers of the Annual Inter- national Conference of the German Operations Research Society, pp

    Devillez, G., Hauweele, P., M´ elot, H.: PHOEG Helps to Obtain Extremal Graphs. In: Operations Research Proceedings 2018: Selected Papers of the Annual Inter- national Conference of the German Operations Research Society, pp. 251–257. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2019) 32

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.