Hitting Weighted Even Cycles in Planar Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A classical branch of graph algorithms is graph transversals, where one seeks a minimum-weight subset of nodes in a node-weighted graph G which intersects all copies of subgraphs F from a fixed family F. Many such graph transversal problems have been shown to admit polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTAS) for planar input graphs G, using a variety of techniques like the shifting technique (Baker, J. ACM 1994), bidimensionality (Fomin et al., SODA 2011), or connectivity domination (Cohen-Addad et al., STOC 2016). These techniques do not seem to apply to graph transversals with parity constraints, which have recently received significant attention, but for which no PTASs are known. In the even-cycle transversal (ECT) problem, the goal is to find a minimum-weight hitting set for the set of even cycles in an undirected graph. For ECT, Fiorini et al. (IPCO 2010) showed that the integrality gap of the standard covering LP relaxation is Θ(log n), and that adding sparsity inequalities reduces the integrality gap to 10. Our main result is a primal-dual algorithm that yields a 47/7 ≈ 6.71-approximation for ECT on node-weighted planar graphs, and an integrality gap of the same value for the standard LP relaxation on node-weighted planar graphs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".