On the Parameterized Approximability of Contraction to Classes of Chordal Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A graph operation that contracts edges is one of the fundamental operations in the theory of graph minors. Parameterized Complexity of editing to a family of graphs by contracting k edges has recently gained substantial scientific attention, and several new results have been obtained. Some important families of graphs, namely, the subfamilies of chordal graphs, in the context of edge contractions, have proven to be significantly difficult than one might expect. In this article, we study the F -Contraction problem, where F is a subfamily of chordal graphs, in the realm of parameterized approximation. Formally, given a graph G and an integer k , F -Contraction asks whether there exists X ⊆ E(G) such that G/X ∈ F and | X | ≤ k . Here, G/X is the graph obtained from G by contracting edges in X . We obtain the following results for the F - Contraction problem: • Clique Contraction is known to be FPT . However, unless NP⊆ coNP/ poly , it does not admit a polynomial kernel. We show that it admits a polynomial-size approximate kernelization scheme ( PSAKS ). That is, it admits a (1 + ε)-approximate kernel with O ( k f(ε)) vertices for every ε > 0. • Split Contraction is known to be W[1]-Hard . We deconstruct this intractability result in two ways. First, we give a (2+ε)-approximate polynomial kernel for Split Contraction (which also implies a factor (2+ε)- FPT -approximation algorithm for Split Contraction ). Furthermore, we show that, assuming Gap-ETH , there is no (5/4-δ)- FPT -approximation algorithm for Split Contraction . Here, ε, δ > 0 are fixed constants. • Chordal Contraction is known to be W[2]-Hard . We complement this result by observing that the existing W[2]-hardness reduction can be adapted to show that, assuming FPT ≠ W[1] , there is no F(k) - FPT -approximation algorithm for Chordal Contraction . Here, F(k) is an arbitrary function depending on k alone. We say that an algorithm is an h(k) - FPT -approximation algorithm for the F -Contraction problem, if it runs in FPT time, and on any input (G, k) such that there exists X ⊆ E(G) satisfying G/X ∈ F and | X | ≤ k , it outputs an edge set Y of size at most h(k) ċ k for which G/Y is in F .
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".