MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030970869 · doi:10.1145/1597036.1597045

A better approximation ratio for the vertex cover problem

2009· article· en· W2030970869 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsVertex coverCover (algebra)Relaxation (psychology)Vertex (graph theory)Maximum cutApproximation algorithmSet cover problemSet (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reduce the approximation factor for the vertex cover to 2 − Θ (1/√log n ) (instead of the previous 2 − Θ ln ln n /2ln n obtained by Bar-Yehuda and Even [1985] and Monien and Speckenmeyer [1985]). The improvement of the vanishing factor comes as an application of the recent results of Arora et al. [2004] that improved the approximation factor of the sparsest cut and balanced cut problems. In particular, we use the existence of two big and well-separated sets of nodes in the solution of the semidefinite relaxation for balanced cut, proven by Arora et al. [2004]. We observe that a solution of the semidefinite relaxation for vertex cover, when strengthened with the triangle inequalities, can be transformed into a solution of a balanced cut problem, and therefore the existence of big well-separated sets in the sense of Arora et al. [2004] translates into the existence of a big independent set.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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