MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014294736 · doi:10.1287/moor.1080.0337

Finding the Exact Integrality Gap for Small Traveling Salesman Problems

2008· article· en· W2014294736 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Benoît, Sylvia Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemMathematicsConjectureCombinatoricsHamiltonian pathHamiltonian (control theory)GraphRelaxation (psychology)Combinatorial optimizationMetric (unit)Discrete mathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The symmetric traveling salesman problem (STSP) is to find a minimum weight Hamiltonian cycle in a weighted complete graph on n nodes. One direction which seems promising for finding improved solutions for the STSP is the study of a linear relaxation of this problem called the subtour elimination problem (SEP). A well-known conjecture in combinatorial optimization says that the integrality gap of the SEP is 4/3 in the metric case. Finding the exact value for this integrality gap is challenging even for small values of n as it is difficult to model this problem in a way that can be solved practically. We describe how we are able to overcome such difficulties and obtain the exact integrality gap for all values of n up to 10 and a lower bound for this gap for all values of n from 11 to 14. Our results give rise to a new stronger form of the conjecture which is dependent on n.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.384
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.050 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207