FINDING SMALLEST SUPERTREES UNDER MINOR CONTAINMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity of application areas relying on tree-structured data results in wide interest in algorithms which determine differences or similarities among trees. One way of measuring the similarity between trees is to find the smallest common superstructure or supertree, where common elements are typically defined in terms of a mapping or embedding. In the simplest case, a supertree will contain exact copies of each input tree, so that for each input tree, each vertex of a tree can be mapped to a vertex in the supertree such that each edge maps to the corresponding edge. More general mappings allow for the extraction of more subtle common elements captured by looser definitions of similarity. We consider supertrees under the general mapping of minor containment. Minor containment generalizes both subgraph isomorphism and topological embedding; as a consequence of this generality, however, it is NP-complete to determine whether or not G is a minor of H, even for genreal trees. By focusing on trees of bounded degree, we obtain an O(n3) algorithm which determines the smallest tree T such that both of the input trees are minors of T, even when the trees are assumed to be unrooted and unordered.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".