An algorithm and upper bounds for the weighted maximal planar graph problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the weighted maximal planar graph (WMPG) problem. Given a complete, edge-weighted, simple graph, the WMPG problem involves finding a subgraph with the highest sum of edge weights that is maximal planar, namely, it can be embedded in the plane without any of its edges intersecting, and no additional edge can be added to the subgraph without violating its planarity. We present a new integer linear programming (ILP) model for this problem. We then develop a cutting-plane algorithm to solve the WMPG problem based on the proposed ILP model. This algorithm enables the problem to be solved more efficiently than previously reported algorithms. New upper bounds are also provided, which are useful in evaluating the quality of heuristic solutions or in generating initial solutions for meta-heuristics. Computational results are reported for a set of 417 test instances of size varying from 6 to 100 nodes including 105 instances from the literature and 312 randomly generated instances. The computational results indicate that instances with up to 24 nodes can be solved optimally in reasonable computational time and the new upper bounds for larger instances significantly improve existing upper bounds.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".