A Unified Framework for Integer Programming Formulation of Graph Matching Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph theory has been a powerful tool in solving difficult and complex problems arising in all disciplines. In particular, graph matching is a classical problem in pattern analysis with enormous applications. Many graph problems have been formulated as a mathematical program then solved using exact, heuristic and/or approximated-guaranteed procedures. On the other hand, graph theory has been a powerful tool in visualizing and understanding of complex mathematical programming problems, especially integer programs. Formulating a graph problem as a natural integer program (IP) is often a challenging task. However, an IP formulation of the problem has many advantages. Several researchers have noted the need for natural IP formulation of graph theoretic problems. The aim of the present study is to provide a unified framework for IP formulation of graph matching problems. Although there are many surveys on graph matching problems, however, none is concerned with IP formulation. This paper is the first to provide a comprehensive IP formulation for such problems. The framework includes variety of graph optimization problems in the literature. While these problems have been studied by different research communities, however, the framework presented here helps to bring efforts from different disciplines to tackle such diverse and complex problems. We hope the present study can significantly help to simplify some of difficult problems arising in practice, especially in pattern analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".