Covering Approximate Shortest Paths with DAGs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We define and study analogs of probabilistic tree embedding and tree cover for directed graphs. We define the notion of a DAG cover of a general directed graph $G$: a small collection $D_1,\dots D_g$ of DAGs so that for all pairs of vertices $s,t$, some DAG $D_i$ provides low distortion for $dist(s,t)$; i.e. $ dist_G(s, t) \le \min_{i \in [g]} dist_{D_i}(s, t) \leq α\cdot dist_G(s, t)$, where $α$ is the distortion. As a trivial upper bound, there is a DAG cover with $n$ DAGs and $α=1$ by taking the shortest-paths tree from each vertex. When each DAG is restricted to be a subgraph of $G$, there is a matching lower bound (via a directed cycle) that $n$ DAGs are necessary, even to preserve reachability. Thus, we allow the DAGs to include a limited number of additional edges not in the original graph. When $n^2$ additional edges are allowed, there is a simple upper bound of two DAGs and $α=1$. Our first result is an almost-matching lower bound that even for $n^{2-o(1)}$ additional edges, at least $n^{1-o(1)}$ DAGs are needed, even to preserve reachability. However, the story is different when the number of additional edges is $\tilde{O}(m)$, a natural setting where the sparsity of the DAG collection nearly matches the original graph. Our main upper bound is that there is a near-linear time algorithm to construct a DAG cover with $\tilde{O}(m)$ additional edges, polylogarithmic distortion, and only $O(\log n)$ DAGs. This is similar to known results for undirected graphs: the well-known FRT probabilistic tree embedding implies a tree cover where both the number of trees and the distortion are logarithmic. Our algorithm also extends to a certain probabilistic embedding guarantee. Lastly, we complement our upper bound with a lower bound showing that achieving a DAG cover with no distortion and $\tilde{O}(m)$ additional edges requires a polynomial number of DAGs.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".