MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963119423 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v8i2a4

Minimum cycle and homology bases of surface-embedded graphs

2017· article· en· W2963119423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Glencora Borradaile, Erin Wolf Chambers, Kyle Fox, Amir Nayyeri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCycle basisMathematicsCombinatoricsHomology (biology)Basis (linear algebra)Minimum weightGraphDiscrete mathematicsLine graphGraph powerGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problems of finding a minimum cycle basis (a minimum-weight set of cycles that form a basis for the cycle space) and a minimum homology basis (a minimum-weight set of cycles that generates the 1-dimensional $(\mathbb{Z}_2)$-homology classes) of an undirected graph cellularly embedded on a surface. The problems are closely related, because the minimum cycle basis of a graph contains its minimum homology basis, and the minimum homology basis of the 1-skeleton of any graph is exactly its minimum cycle basis. For the minimum cycle basis problem, we give a deterministic $O(n^ω + 2^{2g} n^2 + m)$-time algorithm for graphs cellularly embedded on an orientable surface of genus $g$. Prior to this work, the best known algorithms for surface-embedded graphs were those for general graphs: an $O(m^ω)$-time Monte Carlo algorithm and a deterministic $O(nm^2/\log n + n^2m)$-time algorithm. For the minimum homology basis problem, we give a deterministic $O((g + b)^3n\log n + m)$-time algorithm for graphs cellularly embedded on an orientable or non-orientable surface of genus $g$ with $b$ boundary components, improving on existing algorithms for many values of $g$ and $n$. The algorithm assumes that shortest paths are unique; this assumption can be avoided by either using random perturbations of the edge weights guaranteeing a high probability of success or by deterministic means at a cost of an $O(\log n)$ factor increase in running time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207