MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509794588 · doi:10.5555/1496770.1496898

A nearly linear time algorithm for the half integral parity disjoint paths packing problem

2009· article· en· W1509794588 on OpenAlexaff
Ken‐ichi Kawarabayashi, Bruce Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsDisjoint setsAckermann functionMathematicsTime complexityParity (physics)Binary logarithmVertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsApproximation algorithmInverseAlgorithmGraphPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the following problem, which is called the half integral parity disjoint paths packing problem.Input: A graph G, k pair of vertices (s1, t1), (s2, t2), ...,(sk, tk) in G (which are sometimes called terminals), and a parity li for each i with 1 ≤ i ≤ k, where li = 0 or 1.Output: Paths P1, ..., Pk in G such that Pi joins si and ti for i = 1, 2, ..., k and parity of length of the path Pi is li, i.e, if li = 0, then length of Pi is even, and if li = 1, then length of Pi is for i = 1, 2, ..., k.In addition, each vertex is on at most two of these paths.We present an O(mα(m, n) log n) algorithm for fixed k, where n, m are the number of vertices and the number of edges, respectively, and the function α(m, n) is the inverse of the Ackermann function (see by Tarjan [43]). This is the first polynomial time algorithm for this problem, and generalizes polynomial time algorithms by Kleinberg [23] and Kawarabayashi and Reed [20], respectively, for the half integral disjoint paths packing problem, i.e., without the parity requirement.As with the Robertson-Seymour algorithm to solve the k disjoint paths problem, in each iteration, we would like to either use a huge clique minor as a crossbar, or exploit the structure of graphs in which we cannot find such a Here, however, we must maintain the parity of the paths and can only use an odd clique minor. We must also describe the structure of those graphs in which we cannot find such a minor and discuss how to exploit it.We also have algorithms running in O(m(1 + e)) time for any e > 0 for this problem, if k is up to o(log log log n) for general graphs, up to o(log log n) for planar graphs, and up to o(log log n/g) for graphs on the surface, where g is Euler genus. Furthermore, if k is fixed, then we have linear time algorithms for the planar case and for the bounded genus case.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Discrete AlgorithmsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207