A new—old algorithm for minimum‐cut and maximum‐flow in closure graphs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present an algorithm for solving the minimum‐cut problem on closure graphs without maintaining flow values. The algorithm is based on an optimization algorithm for the open‐pit mining problem that was presented in 1964 (and published in 1965) by Lerchs and Grossmann. The Lerchs—Grossmann algorithm (LG algorithm) solves the maximum closure which is equivalent to the minimum‐cut problem. Yet, it appears substantially different from other algorithms known for solving the minimum‐cut problem and does not employ any concept of flow. Instead, it works with sets of nodes that have a natural interpretation in the context of maximum closure in that they have positive total weight and are closed with respect to some subgraph. We describe the LG algorithm and study its features and the new insights it reveals for the maximum‐closure problem and the maximum‐ flow problem. Specifically, we devise a linear time procedure that evaluates a feasible flow corresponding to any iteration of the algorithm. We show that while the LG algorithm is pseudopolynomial, our variant algorithms have complexity of O ( mn log n ), where n is the number of nodes and m is the number of arcs in the graph. Modifications of the algorithm allow for efficient sensitivity and parametric analysis also running in time O ( mn log n ). © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it