Arbitrary Overlap Constraints in Graph Packing Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In earlier versions of the community discovering problem, the overlap between communities was restricted by a simple count upper-bound [17,5,11,8]. In this paper, we introduce the $\Pi$-Packing with $\alpha()$-Overlap problem to allow for more complex constraints in the overlap region than those previously studied. Let $\mathcal{V}^r$ be all possible subsets of vertices of $V(G)$ each of size at most $r$, and $\alpha: \mathcal{V}^r \times \mathcal{V}^r \to \{0,1\}$ be a function. The $\Pi$-Packing with $\alpha()$-Overlap problem seeks at least $k$ induced subgraphs in a graph $G$ subject to: (i) each subgraph has at most $r$ vertices and obeys a property $\Pi$, and (ii) for any pair $H_i,H_j$, with $i\neq j$, $\alpha(H_i, H_j) = 0$ (i.e., $H_i,H_j$ do not conflict). We also consider a variant that arises in clustering applications: each subgraph of a solution must contain a set of vertices from a given collection of sets $\mathcal{C}$, and no pair of subgraphs may share vertices from the sets of $\mathcal{C}$. In addition, we propose similar formulations for packing hypergraphs. We give an $O(r^{rk} k^{(r+1)k} n^{cr})$ algorithm for our problems where $k$ is the parameter and $c$ and $r$ are constants, provided that: i) $\Pi$ is computable in polynomial time in $n$ and ii) the function $\alpha()$ satisfies specific conditions. Specifically, $\alpha()$ is hereditary, applicable only to overlapping subgraphs, and computable in polynomial time in $n$. Motivated by practical applications we give several examples of $\alpha()$ functions which meet those conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".