Approximation algorithms and hardness results for cycle packing problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cycle packing number ν e ( G ) of a graph G is the maximum number of pairwise edge-disjoint cycles in G . Computing ν e ( G ) is an NP-hard problem. We present approximation algorithms for computing ν e ( G ) in both undirected and directed graphs. In the undirected case we analyze a variant of the modified greedy algorithm suggested by Caprara et al. [2003] and show that it has approximation ratio Θ(√log n ), where n = | V ( G )|. This improves upon the previous O (log n ) upper bound for the approximation ratio of this algorithm. In the directed case we present a √ n -approximation algorithm. Finally, we give an O ( n 2/3 )-approximation algorithm for the problem of finding a maximum number of edge-disjoint cycles that intersect a specified subset S of vertices. We also study generalizations of these problems. Our approximation ratios are the currently best-known ones and, in addition, provide upper bounds on the integrality gap of standard LP-relaxations of these problems. In addition, we give lower bounds for the integrality gap and approximability of ν e ( G ) in directed graphs. Specifically, we prove a lower bound of Ω(log n /loglog n ) for the integrality gap of edge-disjoint cycle packing. We also show that it is quasi-NP-hard to approximate ν e ( G ) within a factor of O (log 1 − ε n ) for any constant ε > 0. This improves upon the previously known APX-hardness result for this problem.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".