The Tape Reconfiguration Problem and Its Consequences for Dominating Set Reconfiguration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dominating set of a graph $G=(V,E)$ is a set of vertices $D \subseteq V$ whose closed neighborhood is $V$, i.e., $N[D]=V$. We view a dominating set as a collection of tokens placed on the vertices of $D$. In the token sliding variant of the Dominating Set Reconfiguration problem (TS-DSR), we seek to transform a source dominating set into a target dominating set in $G$ by sliding tokens along edges, and while maintaining a dominating set all along the transformation. TS-DSR is known to be PSPACE-complete even restricted to graphs of pathwidth $w$, for some non-explicit constant $w$ and to be XL-complete parameterized by the size $k$ of the solution. The first contribution of this article consists in using a novel approach to provide the first explicit constant for which the TS-DSR problem is PSPACE-complete, a question that was left open in the literature. From a parameterized complexity perspective, the token jumping variant of DSR, i.e., where tokens can jump to arbitrary vertices, is known to be FPT when parameterized by the size of the dominating sets on nowhere dense classes of graphs. But, in contrast, no non-trivial result was known about TS-DSR. We prove that DSR is actually much harder in the sliding model since it is XL-complete when restricted to bounded pathwidth graphs and even when parameterized by $k$ plus the feedback vertex set number of the graph. This gives, for the first time, a difference of behavior between the complexity under token sliding and token jumping for some problem on graphs of bounded treewidth. All our results are obtained using a brand new method, based on the hardness of the so-called Tape Reconfiguration problem, a problem we believe to be of independent interest.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".