Bi‐arc graphs and the complexity of list homomorphisms
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
Abstract Given graphs G , H , and lists L ( v ) ⊆ V ( H ), v ε V ( G ), a list homomorphism of G to H with respect to the lists L is a mapping f : V ( G ) → V ( H ) such that u v ε E ( G ) implies f ( u ) f ( v ) ε E ( H ), and f ( v ) ε L ( v ) for all v ε V ( G ). The list homomorphism problem for a fixed graph H asks whether or not an input graph G , together with lists L ( v ) ⊆ V ( H ), v ε V ( G ), admits a list homomorphism with respect to L . In two earlier papers, we classified the complexity of the list homomorphism problem in two important special cases: When H is a reflexive graph (every vertex has a loop), the problem is polynomial time solvable if H is an interval graph, and is NP ‐complete otherwise. When H is an irreflexive graph (no vertex has a loop), the problem is polynomial time solvable if H is bipartite and H is a circular arc graph, and is NP ‐complete otherwise. In this paper, we extend these classifications to arbitrary graphs H (each vertex may or may not have a loop). We introduce a new class of graphs, called bi‐arc graphs, which contains both reflexive interval graphs (and no other reflexive graphs), and bipartite graphs with circular arc complements (and no other irreflexive graphs). We show that the problem is polynomial time solvable when H is a bi‐arc graph, and is NP ‐complete otherwise. In the case when H is a tree (with loops allowed), we give a simpler algorithm based on a structural characterization. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory 42: 61–80, 2003
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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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