Minimum Consistent Subset in Trees and Interval Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Minimum Consistent Subset (MCS) problem, we are presented with a connected simple undirected graph G, consisting of a vertex set V(G) of size n and an edge set E(G). Each vertex in V(G) is assigned a color from the set {1,2,…, c}. The objective is to determine a subset V' ⊆ V(G) with minimum possible cardinality, such that for every vertex v ∈ V(G), at least one of its nearest neighbors in V' (measured in terms of the hop distance) shares the same color as v. The decision problem, indicating whether there exists a subset V' of cardinality at most l for some positive integer l, is known to be NP-complete even for planar graphs. In this paper, we establish that the MCS problem is NP-complete on trees. We also provide a fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithm for MCS on trees parameterized by the number of colors (c) running in O(2^{6c} n^6) time, significantly improving the currently best-known algorithm whose running time is O(2^{4c} n^{2c+3}). In an effort to comprehensively understand the computational complexity of the MCS problem across different graph classes, we extend our investigation to interval graphs. We show that it remains NP-complete for interval graphs, thus enriching graph classes where MCS remains intractable.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".