Kernelization Complexity of Solution Discovery Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the solution discovery variant of a vertex (edge) subset problem Π on graphs, we are given an initial configuration of tokens on the vertices (edges) of an input graph G together with a budget b. The question is whether we can transform this configuration into a feasible solution of Π on G with at most b modification steps. We consider the token sliding variant of the solution discovery framework, where each modification step consists of sliding a token to an adjacent vertex (edge). The framework of solution discovery was recently introduced by Fellows et al. [ECAI 2023] and for many solution discovery problems the classical as well as the parameterized complexity has been established. In this work, we study the kernelization complexity of the solution discovery variants of Vertex Cover, Independent Set, Dominating Set, Shortest Path, Matching, and Vertex Cut with respect to the parameters number of tokens k, discovery budget b, as well as structural parameters such as pathwidth.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".