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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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 the Linear Arrangement Problem (LAP) on interval graphs, any interval graph being given here together with its representation as the intersection graph of some collection of intervals, and so with related precedence and inclusion relations. We first propose a lower bound LB , which happens to be tight in the case of unit interval graphs. Next, we introduce the restriction PCLAP of LAP which is obtained by requiring any feasible solution of LAP to be consistent with the precedence relation, 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 on interval graphs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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