Asymmetric traveling salesman path and directed latency problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study integrality gaps and approximability of two closely related problems on directed graphs. Given a set V of n nodes in an underlying asymmetric metric and two specified nodes s and t, both problems ask to find an s-t path visiting all other nodes. In the asymmetric traveling salesman path problem (ATSPP), the objective is to minimize the total cost of this path. In the directed latency problem, the objective is to minimize the sum of distances on this path from s to each node. Both of these problems are NP-hard. The best known approximation algorithms for ATSPP had ratio O(log n) [7, 9] until the very recent result that improves it to O(log n/ log log n) [3, 9]. However, only a bound of O(√n) for the integrality gap of its linear programming relaxation has been known. For directed latency, the best previously known approximation algorithm has a guarantee of O(n1/2+e), for any constant e > 0 [23].We present a new algorithm for the ATSPP problem that has approximation ratio of O(log n), but whose analysis also bounds the integrality gap of the standard LP relaxation of ATSPP by the same factor. This solves an open problem posed in [7]. We then pursue a deeper study of this LP and its variations and their use in approximating directed latency. Our second major result is an O(log n)-approximation to the directed latency problem. This also places an O(log n) bound on the integrality gap of a new LP relaxation of the latency problem that we introduce.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".