Parameterized complexity of weighted target set selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a graph G where each vertex has a threshold. A vertex v in G is activated if the number of active vertices adjacent to v is at least as many as its threshold. A vertex subset A 0 of G is a target set if eventually all vertices in G are activated by initially activating vertices of A 0 . The Target Set Selection problem ( TSS ) involves finding a smallest target set of G . This problem has already been extensively studied and is known to be NP-hard even for very restricted conditions. In this paper, we analyze TSS and its weighted variant, called the Weighted Target Set Selection problem ( WTSS ), from the perspective of parameterized complexity. Let k be the solution size and let ℓ be the maximum threshold. We first show that TSS is W[1]-hard for split graphs when parameterized by k + ℓ , and W[2]-hard for cographs when parameterized by k . We next prove that WTSS is W[2]-hard for trivially perfect graphs when parameterized by k . On the other hand, we show that WTSS can be solved in O ( n log n ) time for complete graphs with n vertices. Additionally, we design FPT algorithms for WTSS when parameterized by nd + ℓ , tw + ℓ , ce , and vc , where nd , tw , ce , and vc are the neighborhood diversity, the treewidth, the cluster editing number, and the vertex cover number of the input graph, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".