MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3053432656 · doi:10.1109/tit.2020.3017127

On Finding Bipartite Graphs With a Small Number of Short Cycles and Large Girth

2020· article· en· W3053432656 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Dehghan, Amir H. Banihashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicError Correcting Code Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBipartite graphCombinatoricsMathematicsTanner graphDiscrete mathematicsDegree (music)Low-density parity-check codeGirth (graph theory)Time complexityComplete bipartite graphGraphAlgorithmDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of finding bipartite (Tanner) graphs with given degree sequences that have large girth and few short cycles is of great interest in many applications including construction of good low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes. In this paper, we prove that for given integers α, β, and -y, and degree sequences π and π', the problem of determining whether there exists a simple bipartite graph with degree sequences (π, π') that has at most α (β and -y) cycles of length four (six and eight, respectively) is NP-complete. This is proved by a two-step polynomial-time reduction from the 3-Partition Problem. On the other hand, using connections to linear hypergraphs, we prove that given the degree sequence π, a polynomial time algorithm can be devised to determine whether there exists a bipartite graph whose degree sequence on one side of the bipartition is π and has a girth of at least six. In addition to these complexity results, we devise a quasi-polynomial time algorithm that can construct a bipartite graph with given (irregular) degree sequences and a girth that increases logarithmically with the size of the graph. Compared to the well-known progressive-edge-growth (PEG) algorithm, the proposed method, in some cases, results in Tanner graphs with larger girth, particularly for scenarios where the degree sequences of the graph are strictly enforced.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicError Correcting Code TechniquesFrench-language works237,207