MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951101008 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.8756

Contraction Obstructions for Connected Graph Searching

2014· preprint· en· W2951101008 on OpenAlexaff
Micah J. Best, Arvind Gupta, Dimitrios M. Thilikos, Dimitris Zoros

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsMitacsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonotone polygonMathematicsCombinatoricsConnected componentFinite setBounded functionContraction (grammar)Strongly connected componentGraphDiscrete mathematicsMixed graphInduced subgraphLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the connected variant of the classic mixed search game where, in each search step, cleaned edges form a connected subgraph. We consider graph classes with bounded connected (and monotone) mixed search number and we deal with the question whether the obstruction set, with respect of the contraction partial ordering, for those classes is finite. In general, there is no guarantee that those sets are finite, as graphs are not well quasi ordered under the contraction partial ordering relation. In this paper we provide the obstruction set for $k=2$, where $k$ is the number of searchers we are allowed to use. This set is finite, it consists of 177 graphs and completely characterises the graphs with connected (and monotone) mixed search number at most 2. Our proof reveals that the "sense of direction" of an optimal search searching is important for connected search which is in contrast to the unconnected original case. We also give a double exponential lower bound on the size of the obstruction set for the classes where this set is finite.

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)0.010
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207