MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076853283 · doi:10.5555/365411.365510

Polynomial algorithms for partitioning problems on graphs with fixed clique-width (extended abstract)

2001· article· en· W2076853283 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Kobler, Udi Rotics

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsChordal graphTreewidthMathematics1-planar graphGraph coloringIndifference graphDiscrete mathematicsClique-sumBrooks' theoremPathwidthIndependent setEdge coloringMaximal independent setSplit graphBounded functionGraphLine graphGraph power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider three graph partitioning problems, both from the vertices and the edges point of view. These problems are dominating set, list-q-coloring with costs (fixed number of colors q) and coloring with non-fixed number of colors. They are all known to be NP-hard in general. We show that all these problems (except edge-coloring) can be solved in polynomial time on graphs with clique-width bounded by some constant k, if the k-expression of the input graph is also given. In particular, we present the first polynomial algorithms (on these classes) for chromatic number, edge-dominating set and list-q-coloring with costs (fixed number of colors q, both vertex and edge versions). Since these classes of graphs include classes like P4-sparse graphs, distance hereditary graphs and graphs with bounded treewidth, our algorithms also apply to these graphs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207