MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221140790 · doi:10.4230/lipics.fsttcs.2021.9

Approximation Algorithms for Flexible Graph Connectivity

2021· preprint· en· W4221140790 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sylvia Boyd, Joseph Cheriyan, Arash Haddadan, Sharat Ibrahimpur

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of VirginiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsApproximation algorithmCombinatoricsMathematicsPartition (number theory)GraphUndirected graphEfficient algorithmAlgorithmDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present approximation algorithms for several network design problems in the model of Flexible Graph Connectivity (Adjiashvili, Hommelsheim and Mühlenthaler, "Flexible Graph Connectivity", Math. Program. pp. 1-33 (2021), IPCO 2020: pp. 13-26). In an instance of the Flexible Graph Connectivity (FGC) problem, we have an undirected connected graph G = (V,E), a partition of E into a set of safe edges S and a set of unsafe edges U, and nonnegative costs {c_e}_{e ∈ E} on the edges. A subset F ⊆ E of edges is feasible for FGC if for any unsafe edge e ∈ F ∩ U, the subgraph (V,F⧵{e}) is connected. The algorithmic goal is to find a (feasible) solution F that minimizes c(F) = ∑_{e ∈ F} c_e. We present a simple 2-approximation algorithm for FGC via a reduction to the minimum-cost r-out 2-arborescence problem. This improves upon the 2.527-approximation algorithm of Adjiashvili et al. For integers p ≥ 1 and q ≥ 0, the (p,q)-FGC problem is a generalization of FGC where we seek a minimum-cost subgraph H = (V,F) that remains p-edge connected against the failure of any set of at most q unsafe edges; that is, for any set F' ⊆ U with |F'| ≤ q, H-F' = (V, F ⧵ F') should be p-edge connected. Note that FGC corresponds to the (1,1)-FGC problem. We give approximation algorithms for two important special cases of (p,q)-FGC: (a) Our 2-approximation algorithm for FGC extends to a (k+1)-approximation algorithm for the (1,k)-FGC problem. (b) We present a 4-approximation algorithm for the (k,1)-FGC problem. For the unweighted FGC problem, where each edge has unit cost, we give a 16/11-approximation algorithm. This improves on the result of Adjiashvili et al. for this problem. The (p,q)-FGC model with p = 1 or q ≤ 1 can be cast as the Capacitated k-Connected Subgraph problem which is a special case of the well-known Capacitated Network Design problem. We denote the former problem by Cap-k-ECSS. An instance of this problem consists of an undirected graph G = (V,E), nonnegative integer edge-capacities {u_e}_{e ∈ E}, nonnegative edge-costs {c_e}_{e ∈ E}, and a positive integer k. The goal is to find a minimum-cost edge-set F ⊆ E such that every (non-trivial) cut of the capacitated subgraph H(V,F,u) has capacity at least k. We give a min(k, 2max_{e ∈ E} u_e)-approximation algorithm for this problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207