A Unified Framework for Integer Programming Formulation of Graph Matching Problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it