Completing orientations of partially oriented graphs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We initiate a general study of what we call orientation completion problems. For a fixed class of oriented graphs, the orientation completion problem asks whether a given partially oriented graph P can be completed to an oriented graph in by orienting the (nonoriented) edges in P . Orientation completion problems commonly generalize several existing problems including recognition of certain classes of graphs and digraphs as well as extending representations of certain geometrically representable graphs. We study orientation completion problems for various classes of oriented graphs, including k ‐arc‐strong oriented graphs, k ‐strong oriented graphs, quasi‐transitive‐oriented graphs, local tournaments, acyclic local tournaments, locally transitive tournaments, locally transitive local tournaments, in‐tournaments, and oriented graphs that have directed cycle factors. We show that the orientation completion problem for each of these classes is either polynomial time solvable or NP‐complete. We also show that some of the NP‐complete problems become polynomial time solvable when the input‐oriented graphs satisfy certain extra conditions. Our results imply that the representation extension problems for proper interval graphs and for proper circular arc graphs are polynomial time solvable. The latter generalizes a previous result.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it