MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108031738 · doi:10.5555/1496770.1496847

A logarithmic approximation for unsplittable flow on line graphs

2009· article· en· W2108031738 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

VenueTU/e Research Portal (Eindhoven University of Technology) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundingBounded functionApproximation algorithmMathematicsBottleneckLogarithmLinear programmingTime complexityMultiplicative functionDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationLinear programming relaxationDynamic programmingRandomized roundingCombinatoricsMaximum flow problemComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the unsplittable flow problem on a line. In this problem, we are given a set of n tasks, each specified by a starttime si, an endtime ti, a demand di> 0, and a profit pi> 0. A task, if accepted, requires di units of “bandwidth ” from time si to ti and accrues a profit of pi. For every time t, we are also specified the available bandwidth ct, and the goal is to find a subset of tasks with maximum profit subject to the bandwidth constraints. We present the first polynomial-time O(log n)-approximation algorithm for this problem. This significantly advances the state-of-the-art, as no polynomial-time o(n)-approximation was known previously. Previous results for this problem were known only in more restrictive settings, in particular, either the instance satisfies the so-called “no-bottleneck ” assumption: maxi di ≤ mintct, or the ratio of both maximum to minimum demands and maximum to minimum capacities are polynomially (or quasi-polynomially) bounded in n. Our result, on the other hand, does not require these assumptions. Our algorithm is based on a combination of dynamic programming and rounding a natural linear programming relaxation for the problem. While there is an Ω(n) integrality gap known for this LP relaxation, our key idea is to exploit certain structural properties of the problem to show that instances that are bad for the LP can in fact be handled using dynamic programming.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.254 · 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