Practical and Efficient Split Decomposition via Graph-Labelled Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Split decomposition of graphs was introduced by Cunningham (under the name join decomposition) as a generalization of the modular decomposition. This paper undertakes an investigation into the algorithmic properties of split decomposition. We do so in the context of graph-labelled trees (GLTs), a new combinatorial object designed to simplify its consideration. GLTs are used to derive an incremental characterization of split decomposition, with a simple combinatorial description, and to explore its properties with respect to Lexicographic Breadth-First Search (LBFS). Applying the incremental characterization to an LBFS ordering results in a split decomposition algorithm that runs in time $O(n+m)α(n+m)$, where $α$ is the inverse Ackermann function, whose value is smaller than 4 for any practical graph. Compared to Dahlhaus' linear-time split decomposition algorithm [Dahlhaus'00], which does not rely on an incremental construction, our algorithm is just as fast in all but the asymptotic sense and full implementation details are given in this paper. Also, our algorithm extends to circle graph recognition, whereas no such extension is known for Dahlhaus' algorithm. The companion paper [Gioan et al.] uses our algorithm to derive the first sub-quadratic circle graph recognition algorithm.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".