FPT-Algorithms for computing Gromov-Hausdorff and interleaving distances between trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gromov-Hausdorff distance is a natural way to measure the distortion between two metric spaces. However, there has been only limited algorithmic development to compute or approximate this distance. We focus on computing the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between two metric trees. Roughly speaking, a metric tree is a metric space that can be realized by the shortest path metric on a tree. Any finite tree with positive edge weight can be viewed as a metric tree where the weight is treated as edge length and the metric is the induced shortest path metric in the tree. Previously, Agarwal et al. showed that even for trees with unit edge length, it is NP-hard to approximate the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between them within a factor of $3$. In this paper, we present a fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithm that can approximatethe Gromov-Hausdorff distance between two general metric trees within a multiplicative factor of $14$. Interestingly, the development of our algorithm is made possible by a connection betweenthe Gromov-Hausdorff distance for metric trees and the interleaving distance for the so-called merge trees. The merge trees arise in practice naturally as a simple yet meaningful topological summary (it is a variant of the Reeb graphs and contour trees), and are of independent interest. It turns out that an exact or approximation algorithm for the interleaving distance leads to an approximation algorithm for the Gromov-Hausdorff distance. One of the key contributions of our work is that we redefine the interleaving distance in a way that makes it easier to develop dynamic programming approaches to compute it. We then present a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm to compute the interleaving distance between two merge trees exactly, which ultimately leads to an FPT-algorithm to approximate the Gromov-Hausdorff distance between two metric trees. This exact FPT-algorithm to compute the interleaving distance between merge trees is of interest itself, as it is known that it is NP-hard to approximate it within a factor of $3$, and previously the best known algorithm has an approximation factor of $O(\sqrt{n})$ even for trees with unit edge length.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".