Price of Connectivity for the vertex cover problem and the dominating set problem: Conjectures and investigation of critical graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vertex cover problem and the dominating set problem are two well-known problems in graph theory. Their goal is to find the minimum size of a vertex subset satisfying some properties. Both hold a connected version, which imposes that the vertex subset must induce a connected component. To study the interdependence between the connected version and the original version of a problem, the Price of Connectivity ( $$PoC$$ ) was introduced by Cardinal and Levy (Theor Comput Sci 411(26–28):2581–2590, 2010) and Levy (Approximation algorithms for covering problems in dense graphs. Ph.D. thesis, Universite libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, 2009) as the ratio between invariants from the connected version and the original version of the problem. Camby et al. (Discret Math Theor Comput Sci 16:207–224, 2014) for the vertex cover problem, Camby and Schaudt (Discret Appl Math 177:53–59, 2014) for the dominating set problem characterized some classes of $$PoC$$ -Near-Perfect graphs, hereditary classes of graphs in which the Price of Connectivity is bounded by a fixed constant. Moreover, only for the vertex cover problem, Camby et al. (2014) introduced the notion of critical graphs, graphs that can appear in the list of forbidden induced subgraphs characterization. By definition, the Price of Connectivity of a critical graph is strictly greater than that of any proper induced subgraph. In this paper, we prove that for the vertex cover problem, every critical graph is either isomorphic to a cycle on 5 vertices or bipartite. To go further in the previous studies, we also present conjectures on $$PoC$$ -Near-Perfect graphs and critical graphs with the help of the computer software GraphsInGraphs (Camby and Caporossi in Studying graphs and their induced subgraphs with the computer: GraphsInGraphs. Cahiers du GERAD G-2016-10, 2016). Moreover, for the dominating set problem, we investigate critical trees and we show that every minimum dominating set of a critical graph is independent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".