Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent paper, we introduced the simultaneous representation problem (defined for any graph class C) and studied the problem for chordal, comparability and permutation graphs. For interval graphs, the problem is defined as follows. Two interval graphs G_1 and G_2, sharing some vertices I (and the corresponding induced edges), are said to be `simultaneous interval graphs' if there exist interval representations R_1 and R_2 of G_1 and G_2, such that any vertex of I is mapped to the same interval in both R_1 and R_2. Equivalently, G_1 and G_2 are simultaneous interval graphs if there exist edges E' between G_1-I and G_2-I such that G_1 \cup G_2 \cup E' is an interval graph. Simultaneous representation problems are related to simultaneous planar embeddings, and have applications in any situation where it is desirable to consistently represent two related graphs, for example: interval graphs capturing overlaps of DNA fragments of two similar organisms; or graphs connected in time, where one is an updated version of the other. In this paper we give an O(n^2*logn) time algorithm for recognizing simultaneous interval graphs,where n = |G_1 \cup G_2|. This result complements the polynomial time algorithms for recognizing probe interval graphs and provides an efficient algorithm for the interval graph sandwich problem for the special case where the set of optional edges induce a complete bipartite graph.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".