GRAPH BISECTION MODELED AS CARDINALITY CONSTRAINED BINARY QUADRATIC TASK ALLOCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the cardinality constrained quadratic model for binary quadratic programming is used to model and solve the graph bisection problem as well as its generalization in the form of the task allocation problem with two processors (2-TAP). Balanced graph bisection is an NP-complete problem which partitions a set of nodes in the graph G = (N, E) into two sets with equal cardinality such that a minimal sum of edge weights exists between the nodes in the two separate sets. 2-TAP is graph bisection with the addition of node preference costs in the objective function. We transform the general linear k-TAP model to the cardinality constrained quadratic binary model so that it may be efficiently solved using tabu search with strategic oscillation. On a set of benchmark graph bisections, we improve the best known solution for several problems. Comparison results with the state-of-the-art graph partitioning program METIS, as well as Cplex and Gurobi are presented on a set of randomly generated graphs. This approach is shown to also work well with 2-TAP, comparing favorably to Cplex and Gurobi, providing better solutions in a much shorter time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".