Online Domination: The Value of Getting to Know All Your Neighbors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the dominating set problem in an online setting. An algorithm is required to guarantee competitiveness against an adversary that reveals the input graph one node at a time. When a node is revealed, the algorithm learns about the entire neighborhood of the node (including those nodes that have not yet been revealed). Furthermore, the adversary is required to keep the revealed portion of the graph connected at all times. We present an algorithm that achieves 2-competitiveness on trees. We also present algorithms that achieve 2.5-competitiveness on cactus graphs, (t-1)-competitiveness on K_{1,t}-free graphs, and Θ(√{Δ}) for maximum degree Δ graphs. We show that all of those competitive ratios are tight. Then, we study several more general classes of graphs, such as threshold, bipartite planar, and series-parallel graphs, and show that they do not admit competitive algorithms (i.e., when competitive ratio is independent of the input size). Previously, the dominating set problem was considered in a different input model (often together with the restriction of the input graph being always connected), where a vertex is revealed alongside its restricted neighborhood: those neighbors that are among already revealed vertices. Thus, conceptually, our results quantify the value of knowing the entire neighborhood at the time a vertex is revealed as compared to the restricted neighborhood. For instance, it was known in the restricted neighborhood model that 3-competitiveness is optimal for trees, whereas knowing the neighbors allows us to improve it to 2-competitiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".