Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we consider the problem of testing whether a graph has bounded arboricity. The family of graphs with bounded arboricity includes, among others, bounded-degree graphs, all minor-closed graph classes (e.g. planar graphs, graphs with bounded treewidth) and randomly generated preferential attachment graphs. Graphs with bounded arboricity have been studied extensively in the past, in particular since for many problems they allow for much more efficient algorithms and/or better approximation ratios. We present a tolerant tester in the sparse-graphs model. The sparse-graphs model allows access to degree queries and neighbor queries, and the distance is defined with respect to the actual number of edges. More specifically, our algorithm distinguishes between graphs that are e-close to having arboricity α and graphs that c · ∊-far from having arboricity 3α, where c is an absolute small constant. The query complexity and running time of the algorithm are1 where n denotes the number of vertices and m denotes the number of edges. In terms of the dependence on n and m this bound is optimal up to poly-logarithmic factors since queries are necessary (and the arboricity of a graph is always . We leave it as an open question whether the dependence on 1/∊ can be improved from quasi-polynomial to polynomial. Our techniques include an efficient local simulation for approximating the outcome of a global (almost) forest-decomposition algorithm as well as a tailored procedure of edge sampling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".