Tree Spanners for Bipartite Graphs and Probe Interval Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tree t-spanner T in a graph G is a spanning tree of G such that the distance between every pair of vertices in T is at most t times their distance in G. The tree t-spanner problem asks whether a graph admits a tree t-spanner, given t. We first substantially strengthen the known results for bipartite graphs. We prove that the tree t-spanner problem is NP-complete even for chordal bipartite graphs for t 5, and every bipartite ATE--free graph has a tree 3-spanner, which can be found in linear time. The best known before results were NP-completeness for general bipartite graphs, and that every convex graph has a tree 3-spanner. We next focus on the tree t-spanner problem for probe interval graphs and related graph classes. The graph classes were introduced to deal with the physical mapping of DNA. From a graph theoretical point of view, the classes are natural generalizations of interval graphs. We show that these classes are tree 7-spanner admissible, and a tree 7-spanner can be constructed in O(m log n) time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".