MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416918872 · doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2025.103738

Induced minor models. I. Structural properties and algorithmic consequences

2025· article· en· W4416918872 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Bousquet, Clément Dallard, Maël Dumas, Claire Hilaire, Martin Milanič, Anthony Perez, Nicolas Trotignon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer and System Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniverza na Primorskem
KeywordsMinor (academic)Set (abstract data type)Term (time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A graph H is an induced minor of G if there exists an induced minor model of H in G , that is, a collection of pairwise disjoint subsets of vertices of G labeled by the vertices of H , each inducing a connected subgraph in G , such that two vertices of H are adjacent if and only if there is an edge in G between the corresponding subsets. In this paper, we investigate structural properties of induced minor models, including bounds on treewidth and chromatic number of the subgraphs induced by minimal induced minor models. As algorithmic applications of our structural results, we make use of recent developments regarding tree-independence number to show that if H is the 4-wheel, the 5-vertex complete graph minus an edge, or a complete bipartite graph K 2 , q , then there is a polynomial-time algorithm to find in a given graph G an induced minor model of H in G , if there is one. We also develop an alternative polynomial-time algorithm for recognizing graphs that do not contain K 2 , 3 as an induced minor, which revolves around the idea of detecting the induced subgraphs whose presence is forced when the input graph contains K 2 , 3 as an induced minor. It turns out that all these induced subgraphs are Truemper configurations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer and System SciencesSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207