MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237140089 · doi:10.1137/1.9781611973068.77

A logarithmic approximation for unsplittable flow on line graphs

2009· article· en· W4237140089 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBottleneckLogarithmApproximation algorithmBounded functionMathematicsTime complexityComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the unsplittable flow problem on a line. In this problem, we are given a set of n tasks, each specified by a start time si, an end time ti, a demand di > 0, and a profit pi > 0. A task, if accepted, requires di units of “bandwidth” from time si to ti and accrues a profit of pi. For every time t, we are also specified the available bandwidth ct, and the goal is to find a subset of tasks with maximum profit subject to the bandwidth constraints. In this paper, we present the first polynomial-time O(log n)-approximation algorithm for this problem. No polynomial-time o(n)-approximation was known prior to this work. Previous results for this problem were known only in more restrictive settings, in particular, either if the given instance satisfies the so-called “no-bottleneck” assumption: maxi di ≤ mint ct, or else if the ratio of the maximum to the minimum demands and ratio of the maximum to the minimum capacities are polynomially (or quasi-polynomially) bounded in n. Our result, on the other hand, does not require any of these assumptions. Our algorithm is based on a combination of dynamic programming and rounding a natural linear programming relaxation for the problem. While there is an Ω(n) integrality gap known for this LP relaxation, our key idea is to exploit certain structural properties of the problem to show that instances that are bad for the LP can in fact be handled using dynamic programming.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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