MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982703654 · doi:10.4230/lipics.disc.2019.26

The Complexity of Symmetry Breaking in Massive Graphs

2019· article· en· W2982703654 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Konrad, Sriram V. Pemmaraju, Talal Riaz, Peter Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmegaCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsSymmetry breakingGraphAlgorithmMathematicsTime complexityDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsParticle physicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to understand the complexity of symmetry breaking problems, specifically maximal independent set (MIS) and the closely related $β$-ruling set problem, in two computational models suited for large-scale graph processing, namely the $k$-machine model and the graph streaming model. We present a number of results. For MIS in the $k$-machine model, we improve the $\tilde{O}(m/k^2 + Δ/k)$-round upper bound of Klauck et al. (SODA 2015) by presenting an $\tilde{O}(m/k^2)$-round algorithm. We also present an $\tildeΩ(n/k^2)$ round lower bound for MIS, the first lower bound for a symmetry breaking problem in the $k$-machine model. For $β$-ruling sets, we use hierarchical sampling to obtain more efficient algorithms in the $k$-machine model and also in the graph streaming model. More specifically, we obtain a $k$-machine algorithm that runs in $\tilde{O}(βnΔ^{1/β}/k^2)$ rounds and, by using a similar hierarchical sampling technique, we obtain one-pass algorithms for both insertion-only and insertion-deletion streams that use $O(β\cdot n^{1+1/2^{β-1}})$ space. The latter result establishes a clear separation between MIS, which is known to require $Ω(n^2)$ space (Cormode et al., ICALP 2019), and $β$-ruling sets, even for $β= 2$. Finally, we present an even faster 2-ruling set algorithm in the $k$-machine model, one that runs in $\tilde{O}(n/k^{2-ε} + k^{1-ε})$ rounds for any $ε$, $0 \le ε\le 1$.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207