Integer programming formulations for minimum deficiency interval coloring
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proper edge‐coloring of a given undirected graph with natural numbers identified with colors is an interval (or consecutive) coloring if the colors of edges incident to each vertex form an interval of consecutive integers. Not all graphs admit such an edge‐coloring and the problem of deciding whether a graph is interval colorable is NP‐complete. For a graph that is not interval colorable, determining a graph invariant called the (minimum) deficiency is a widely used approach. Deficiency is a measure of how close the graph is to have an interval coloring. The majority of the studies in the literature either derive bounds on the deficiency of general graphs or calculate the deficiency of graphs belonging to some special graph classes. In this work, we derive integer programming formulations of the Minimum Deficiency Problem which seeks to find the exact deficiency value of a graph, given a bound on the number of colors that can be used. We further enhance the formulation by introducing a family of valid inequalities. Then, we solve our model via a branch‐and‐cut algorithm . Our computational study on a large set of random graphs illustrates the strength of our formulation and the efficiency of the proposed approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it