BOUNDED SEARCH TREE ALGORITHMS FOR PARAMETRIZED COGRAPH DELETION: EFFICIENT BRANCHING RULES BY EXPLOITING STRUCTURES OF SPECIAL GRAPH CLASSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many fixed-parameter tractable algorithms using a bounded search tree have been repeatedly improved, often by describing a larger number of branching rules involving an increasingly complex case analysis. We introduce a novel and general search strategy that branches on the forbidden subgraphs of a graph class relaxation. By using the class of P4-sparse graphs as the relaxed graph class, we obtain efficient bounded search tree algorithms for several parametrized deletion problems. We give the first non-trivial bounded search tree algorithms for the cograph edge-deletion problem and the trivially perfect edge-deletion problems. For the cograph vertex deletion problem, a refined analysis of the runtime of our simple bounded search algorithm gives a faster exponential factor than those algorithms designed with the help of complicated case distinctions and non-trivial running time analysis [R. Niedermeier and P. Rossmanith, An efficient fixed-parameter algorithm for 3-hitting set, J. Discrete Algorithms1(1) (2003) 89–102] and computer-aided branching rules [J. Gramm, J. Guo, F. Hüffner and R. Niedermeier, Automated generation of search tree algorithms for hard graph modification problems, Algorithmica39(4) (2004) 321–347].
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".