Toward a Dichotomy for Approximation of $H$-coloring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given two (di)graphs G, H and a cost function $c:V(G)\times V(H) \to \mathbb{Q}_{\geq 0}\cup\{+\infty\}$, in the minimum cost homomorphism problem, MinHOM(H), goal is finding a homomorphism $f:V(G)\to V(H)$ (a.k.a H-coloring) that minimizes $\sum\limits_{v\in V(G)}c(v,f(v))$. The complexity of exact minimization of this problem is well understood [34], and the class of digraphs H, for which the MinHOM(H) is polynomial time solvable is a small subset of all digraphs. In this paper, we consider the approximation of MinHOM within a constant factor. For digraphs, MinHOM(H) is not approximable if H contains a digraph asteroidal triple (DAT). We take a major step toward a dichotomy classification of approximable cases. We give a dichotomy classification for approximating the MinHOM(H) when H is a graph. For digraphs, we provide constant factor approximation algorithms for two important classes of digraphs, namely bi-arc digraphs (digraphs with a conservative semi-lattice polymorphism or min-ordering), and k-arc digraphs (digraphs with an extended min-ordering). Specifically, we show that: 1. Dichotomy for Graphs: MinHOM(H) has a $2|V(H)|$-approximation algorithm if graph H admits a conservative majority polymorphims (i.e. H is a bi-arc graph), otherwise, it is inapproximable; 2. MinHOM(H) has a $|V(H)|^2$-approximation algorithm if H is a bi-arc digraph; 3. MinHOM(H) has a $|V(H)|^2$-approximation algorithm if H is a k-arc digraph. In conclusion, we show the importance of these results and provide insights for achieving a dichotomy classification of approximable cases. Our constant factors depend on the size of H. However, the implementation of our algorithms provides a much better approximation ratio. It leaves open to investigate a classification of digraphs H, where MinHOM(H) admits a constant factor approximation algorithm that is independent of H.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".