Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Study audits extremal claims in topological graph literature, revealing multiple defects.
The literature on topological graph indices contains many extremal results: statements of the form “over the graph class Gn,π the index I is maximized (minimized) exactly by the graphs Hn,π, with value φ(n,π)”. We describe a reproducible audit methodology: published extremal claims are transcribed into a formal, machine-readable claim model and tested by exhaustive enumeration over all graphs of small order, with exact arithmetic certificates for every reported contradiction. Auditing 1271 machine-encoded claim rows (1238 transcribed from over 140 published papers, plus 33 calibration and engine cross-check rows), we document 24 defect cases in 23 papers (2015–2027), none of which had a paper-specific published correction as of 11 August 2026. One of them reinstates a statement whose corrected form had been in print for a decade. Each case comes with explicit counterexamples and exact certificates; where possible we prove complete repaired theorems, including sharp corrected bounds with full equality characterizations. Recurring failure mechanisms are identified — unproved “analogous” branches, boundary parameter values excluded by the proof but included in the statement, incomplete equality characterizations, empty extremal families, and formula–proof inconsistencies — together with three documented propagation chains (reuse, silent correction, reintroduction). Two further defects found by the same pipeline turned out to have been corrected in the literature; they are reported separately as retrospective validation of the method. Contents: the preprint (30 pages) and the frozen data-and-code archive (topological_index_audit_archive.zip): 1271 machine-encoded claim rows in 194 JSON claim files, the evaluation engine with self-test (validated against OEIS A001349, A000055, A001429), a mutation test (90 of 90 sampled mutants flipped), an independent per-case verifier, an exhaustive connected-bipartite generator for even orders up to 8, the full verification output at the freeze date (1214 PASS, 51 FAIL, 6 EMPTY, 0 unexpected, every FAIL and EMPTY accounted for), a transcription-error log, a per-case map from the paper's master-table rows to claim files, a README with reproduction commands, and SHA-256 checksums. Requirements: Python 3.11+ with networkx ≥ 3.3. Audit freeze date: 11 August 2026. Publisher PDFs of the audited papers are not included (copyright).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J Allikvere (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: