Improved Algorithms for MST and Metric-TSP Interdiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the MST-interdiction problem: given a multigraph G = (V, E), edge weights {w_e >= 0}_{e in E}, interdiction costs {c_e >= 0}_{e in E}, and an interdiction budget B >= 0, the goal is to remove a subset R of edges of total interdiction cost at most B so as to maximize the w-weight of an MST of G-R:=(V,E-R). Our main result is a 4-approximation algorithm for this problem. This improves upon the previous-best 14-approximation [Zenklusen, FOCS 2015]. Notably, our analysis is also significantly simpler and cleaner than the one in [Zenklusen, FOCS 2015]. Whereas Zenklusen uses a greedy algorithm with an involved analysis to extract a good interdiction set from an over-budget set, we utilize a generalization of knapsack called the tree knapsack problem that nicely captures the key combinatorial aspects of this "extraction problem." We prove a simple, yet strong, LP-relative approximation bound for tree knapsack, which leads to our improved guarantees for MST interdiction. Our algorithm and analysis are nearly tight, as we show that one cannot achieve an approximation ratio better than 3 relative to the upper bound used in our analysis (and the one in [Zenklusen, FOCS 2015]). Our guarantee for MST-interdiction yields an 8-approximation for metric-TSP interdiction (improving over the 28-approximation in [Zenklusen, FOCS 2015]). We also show that maximum-spanning-tree interdiction is at least as hard to approximate as the minimization version of densest-k-subgraph.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".