MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036731068

Combinatorially Thin Trees and Spectrally Thin Trees in Structured Graphs

2023· dissertation· en· W7036731068 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsSpanning treeTrémaux treeMinimum degree spanning treeBounded functionMinimum spanning treeGraphConjectureKruskal's algorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a graph $G=(V,E)$, finding simpler estimates of $G$ with possibly fewer edges or vertices while capturing some of its specific properties has been used in order to design efficient algorithms. The concept of estimating a graph with a simpler graph is known as graph sparsification. Spanning trees are an important family of graph sparsifiers that maintain connectivity of graphs, and have been utilized in many applications. However, spanning trees are a wide family, and for some applications one might need the spanning tree to have specific properties. Combinatorially thin trees are a type of spanning trees that show up in applications such as Asymmetric Travelling Salesman Problem (ATSP). A spanning tree $T$ of $G$ is combinatorially thin if there is no cut $U\\subset V$ such that $T$ contains all the edges in $\\delta(U)$, and the thinness parameter $\\alpha_G(T)$ measures the maximum fraction of edges in $E(T)\\cap \\delta(U)$ compared to $\\delta(U)$ over all cuts $U\\subset V$. \n \n \nIntuitively, combinatorial thinness measures how much edge-connectivity we lose while removing the spanning tree $T$ from $G$. It is easy to verify that if $G$ has connectivity $k$, then $\\frac{1}{k}$ lower bounds $\\alpha_G$. On the other hand, Goddyn conjectured that $\\alpha_G$ can also be upper bounded as a function of connectivity $\\alpha_G = f(\\frac{1}{k})$. This conjecture which is known as thin tree conjecture, was proved for the special case of graphs with bounded genus by Oveis-Gharan and Saberi, in 2011. However, the general case is still open. In the first part of this thesis, we study some of the known connections between edge-connectivity and $\\alpha_{G}$ and investigate the result of Oveis-Gharan and Saberi for the special case of planar graphs. \n \n \nFor a general graph $G$ and spanning tree $T$, even verifying the combinatorial thinness $\\alpha_{G}(T)$ of $T$ is an $\\text{NP}$-hard problem. A natural more efficiently computable relaxation of combinatorial thinness is the notion of spectral thinness. For a graph $G$ and a spanning tree $T$ in $G$ the spectral thinness $\\theta_{G}(T)$ is the smallest value of $\\theta$ such that $\\theta\\L_G - \\L_T$ is a positive semidefinite matrix where $\\L_G$ and $\\L_T$ are Laplacian matrices of $G$ and $T$. Additionally, we define $\\theta_G$ to be the minimum value of $\\theta_{G}(T)$ over all spanning trees $T$ of $G$. \n \n \nSimilar to combinatorial thinness and connectivity, $\\theta_{G}(T)$ can be lower bounded by the maximum effective resistance of edges in $T$. It was also proven by Harvey and Olver in 2014 that the maximum effective resistance of edges in $G$ asymptotically upper bounds $\\theta_{G}$. However, finding a mathematical characterization of $\\theta_{G}(T)$, even for structured graphs, is still a challenge. In the second part of this thesis, we will give general lower bound and upper bound certificates for $\\theta_{G}(T)$ and utilize these certificates for circulant matrices to estimate spectral thinness of graphs such as complete graphs, complete bipartite graphs, and prism graphs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207