MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Logarithmic Integrality Gap for Generalizations of Quasi-Bipartite Instances of Directed Steiner Tree

2019· preprint· en· W2991205088 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSteiner tree problemBipartite graphCombinatoricsMathematicsApproximation algorithmDiscrete mathematicsTree (set theory)AlgorithmGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the classic Directed Steiner Tree problem (DST), we are given an edge-weighted directed graph G = (V,E) with n nodes, a specified root node r ∈ V, and k terminals X ⊆ V-{r}. The goal is to find the cheapest F ⊆ E such that r can reach any terminal using only edges in F. Designing approximation algorithms for DST is quite challenging, to date the best approximation guarantee of a polynomial-time algorithm for DST is O(k^ε) for any constant ε > 0 [Charikar et al., 1999]. For network design problems like DST, one often relies on natural cut-based linear programming (LP) relaxations to design approximation algorithms. In general, the integrality gap of such an LP for DST is known to have a polynomial integrality gap lower bound [Zosin and Khuller, 2002; Li and Laekhanukit, 2021]. So particular interest has been invested in special cases or in strengthenings of this LP. In this work, we show the integrality gap is only O(log k) for instances of DST where no Steiner node has both an edge from another Steiner node and an edge to another Steiner node, i.e. the longest path using only Steiner nodes has length at most 1. This generalizes the well-studied case of quasi-bipartite DST where no edge has both endpoints being Steiner nodes. Our result is also optimal in the sense that the integrality gap can be as bad as poly(n) even if the longest path with only Steiner nodes has length 2.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.091 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207