MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345365639

Algorithmic complexity and extremality characterizations for edge searching and its variations

2008· dissertation· en· W2345365639 on OpenAlexaff
Öznur Yaşar

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipartite graphCombinatoricsPathwidthSearch problemMonotone polygonMathematicsGraphCombinatorial searchTheoretical computer scienceTime complexityComputer scienceSearch algorithmBeam searchAlgorithmLine graph
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edge searching is a combinatorial game played on graphs. The aim is to construct a search strategy to catch an intruder hidden in the graph independent of his actions. If the intruder has a diffused form then searching corresponds to cleaning the graph. A related problem consists of minimizing the number of searchers used in this search. Various versions of edge searching have been introduced in the past depending on how searchers and the intruder can move. In this dissertation we define Weighted Search and Fast Search as two new variants and answer some complexity and extremality problems. -- Weighted Search corresponds to cleaning a contaminated graph where edges may have different capacities. The main result we have is that Weighted Search is an NP-complete problem. We also give comparison results such as bounds on the weighted search number in terms of related graph parameters including pathwidth. We characterize those graphs which two searchers can clean. -- Fast Search is an internal monotone search where no edge is traversed more than once in a non-weighted graph. We present a linear time algorithm to compute a fast search strategy for a given tree. We investigate the fast search strategies for bipartite graphs. -- The construction of k-searchable graphs, those graphs which k searchers can clean, has been of major interest. Graphs that are 1,2 or 3-searchable have been completely characterized previously, whereas characterizing 4-searchable graphs was left as an open problem. We solve this problem partially and give insights for future work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207