MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886010892 · doi:10.1137/20m1356968

When Do Gomory--Hu Subtrees Exist?

2022· preprint· en· W2886010892 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guyslain Naves, F. Bruce Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCombinatoricsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gomory--Hu (GH) trees are a classical sparsification technique for graph connectivity. For an edge-capacitated undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ and subset $Z \subseteq V$ of terminals, a GH tree is an edge-capacitated tree $T=(Z,E(T))$ such that for every $u,v \in Z$, the value of the minimum capacity $uv$ cut in $G$ is the same as in $T$. It is well-known that there does not always exist a GH tree which is a subgraph (or minor if $Z \neq V$) of $G$. We characterize those graph-terminal pairs $(G,Z)$ which always admit such a tree. We show that these are the graphs which have no terminal-$K_{2,3}$ minor, that is, a $K_{2,3}$ minor whose nodes each corresponds to a terminal. We then show that the pairs $(G,Z)$ which forbid such $K_{2,3}$ terminal-minors arise, roughly speaking, from so-called Okamura--Seymour instances, planar graphs whose outside face contains all terminals. One consequence is a result on cut-sufficient pairs $(G,H)$, that is, multiflow instances where the cut condition is sufficient to guarantee a multiflow for any capacity/demand weights on $G/H$. Our results characterize the pairs $(G,Z)$ where $G$ is a graph, $Z \subseteq V(G)$, such that $(G,H)$ is cut-sufficient for any demand graph $H$ on $Z$.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Discrete MathematicsSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207