Isolated Scattering Number Can be Computed in Polynomial Time for Interval Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The isolated scattering number of an incomplete connected graph\(~G\) is defined as \(\operatorname{isc}(G)=\max\{i(G-X)-|X|:X\in C(G)\}\), where\(~i(G-X)\) and\(~C(G)\), respectively, denote the number of components which are isolated vertices and the set of all separators of\(~G\). The isolated scattering number is a comparatively better parameter to measure the vulnerability of networks. We give a polynomial time algorithm to compute the isolated scattering number of interval graphs, a subclass of co-comparability graphs. Our result can also be used to compute isolated scattering number of proper interval graph. References C. A. Barefoot, R. Entringer and H. Swart. Vulnerability in graphs–-A comparative survey. J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput. 1:12–22, 1987. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266002676 J. A. Bondy and U. S. R. Murty. Graph Theory with Applications. Macmillan, London and Elsevier, New york, 1976. http://101.96.10.59/www.iro.umontreal.ca/ hahn/IFT3545/GTWA.pdf K. S. Booth and G. S. Lueker. Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs, and graph planarity using PQ-tree algorithms. J. Comput. System Sci. 13(3):335–379, 1976. doi:10.1016/S0022-0000(76)80045-1 H. Broersma, J. Fiala, P. Golovach, T. Kaiser, D. Paulusma, A. Proskurowski. Linear-time algorithms for scattering number and hamilton-connectivity of interval graphs. J Graph Theory 79(4): 282-299, 2015. doi:10.1002/jgt.21832 M. C. Carlisle, E. L. Loyd. On the k-coloring of intervals. LNCS 497: 90–101, 1991. doi:10.1016/0166-218X(95)80003-M V. Chvatal. Tough graphs and Hamiltonian circuits. Discrete Mathematics 5:215–228, 1973. doi:10.1016/j.disc.2006.03.011 M. Cozzens, D. Moazzami and S. Stueckle. The tenacity of a graph. Proc. 7th International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Graphs, Wiley, New York, 1111–1122, 1995. http://101.96.10.59/www.iro.umontreal.ca/ hahn/IFT3545/GTWA.pdf J. Fabri. Automatic Storage Optimization. UMI Press Ann Arbor, MI, 1982. doi:10.1145/989393.989398 P. C. Gilmore and A. J. Hoffman. A characterization of comparability graphs and of interval graphs. Canadian J. Math. 16(99):539–548, 1964. doi:10.1142/97898127969360006 M. C. Golumbic. Algorithmic Graph Theory and Perfect Graphs. Academic Press, 1980. doi:10.1007/BF00390110 H. A. Jung. On maximal circuits in finite graphs. Ann Discrete Math. 3:129–144, 1978. doi:10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70503-X J. R. Jungck, O. Dick, and A. G. Dick. Computer assisted sequencing, interval graphs and molecular evolution. Biosystem 15:259–273, 1982. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(82)90010-7 T. Kloks and D. Kratschz. Listing all minimal separators of a graph. SIAM J. Comput. 27(3):605–613, 1998. doi:10.1137/S009753979427087X T. Kloks, D. Kratsch and J. Spinrad. Tree-width and path-width of co-comparability graphs of bounded dimension. Computing Science Note. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 93-46. https:alexandria.tue.nl/extra1/wskrap/publichtml/9313455.pdf D. Kratsch, T. Klocks and H. Muller. Computing the toughness and the scattering number for interval and other graphs. IRISA resarch report. France, 1994. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2646060 F. W. Li. On isolated rupture degree of graphs. Utilitas Mathematica 96: 33–47, 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292526797 F. W. Li. Isolated rupture degree of trees and gear graphs. Neural Network World 25(3): 287–300, 2015. doi:10.14311/NNW.2015.25.015 F. W. Li and X. L. Li. Neighbor-scattering number can be computed in polynomial time for interval graphs. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 54(5):679–686, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2007.02.006 Y. K. Li, S. G. Zhang and X. L. Li. Rupture degree of graphs. Int. J. Comput. Math. 82(7):793–803, 2005. doi:10.1080/00207160412331336062 T. Ohtsuki, H. Mori, Khu. E. S., T. Kashiwabara, T. Fujisawa. One dimensional logic gate assignment and interval graph. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems 26:675–684, 1979. doi:10.1109/TCS.1979.1084695 S. Y. Wang, Y. X. Yang, S. W. Lin, J. Li and Z. M. Hu. The isolated scattering number of graphs. Acta Math. Sinica (in Chinese) 54(5):861–874, 2011. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-SXXB201105015.htm
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".