MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593872908 · doi:10.1051/ro/2017011

Lower and upper bounds for the linear arrangement problem on interval graphs

2017· article· en· W2593872908 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Quilliot, Djamal Rebaïne, Hélène Toussaint

Bibliographic record

VenueRAIRO - Operations Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsInterval graphIntersection graphMathematicsInterval (graph theory)CombinatoricsIndifference graphGraphIntersection (aeronautics)Upper and lower boundsDiscrete mathematicsChordal graph1-planar graphLine graphMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We deal here with theLinear Arrangement Problem(LAP) onintervalgraphs, any interval graph being given here together with its representation as theintersectiongraph of some collection of intervals, and so with relatedprecedenceandinclusionrelations. We first propose a lower boundLB, which happens to be tight in the case ofunit intervalgraphs. Next, we introduce the restriction PCLAP of LAP which is obtained by requiring any feasible solution of LAP to be consistent with theprecedencerelation, and prove that PCLAP can be solved in polynomial time. Finally, we show both theoretically and experimentally that PCLAP solutions are a good approximation for LAP onintervalgraphs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRAIRO - Operations ResearchSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207