Token Swapping on Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The input to the token swapping problem is a graph with vertices $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n$, and $n$ tokens with labels $1, 2, \ldots, n$, one on each vertex. The goal is to get token $i$ to vertex $v_i$ for all $i= 1, \ldots, n$ using a minimum number of swaps, where a swap exchanges the tokens on the endpoints of an edge. We present some results about token swapping on a tree, also known as "sorting with a transposition tree": 1. An optimum swap sequence may need to perform a swap on a leaf vertex that has the correct token (a "happy leaf"), disproving a conjecture of Vaughan. 2. Any algorithm that fixes happy leaves -- as all known approximation algorithms for the problem do -- has approximation factor at least $4/3$. Furthermore, the two best-known 2-approximation algorithms have approximation factor exactly 2. 3. A generalized problem -- weighted coloured token swapping -- is NP-complete on trees, even when they are restricted to be subdivided stars, but solvable in polynomial time on paths and stars. In this version, tokens and vertices have colours, and colours have weights. The goal is to get every token to a vertex of the same colour, and the cost of a swap is the sum of the weights of the two tokens involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".