MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7078732059 · doi:10.4230/lipics.wads.2025.23

Novel Complexity Results for Temporal Separators with Deadlines

2025· article· en· W7078732059 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounded functionVertex (graph theory)Separator (oil production)Time complexityDominating setTreewidthPathwidth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider two variants, (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Separator and (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Cut, respectively, of the vertex separator and the edge cut problem in temporal graphs. The goal is to remove the minimum number of vertices (temporal edges, respectively) in order to delete all the temporal paths that have time travel at most 𝓁 between a source vertex s and target vertex z. First, we solve an open problem in the literature showing that (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Separator is NP-hard even when the underlying graph has pathwidth bounded by four. We complement this result showing that (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Separator can be solved in polynomial time for graphs of pathwidth bounded by three. Then we consider the approximability of (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Separator and we show that it cannot be approximated within factor 2^Ω(log^{1-ε}|V|) for any constant ε > 0, unless NP ⊆ ZPP (V is the vertex set of the input temporal graph) and that the strict version is approximable within factor 𝓁-1 (we show also that it is unliklely that this factor can be improved). Then we consider the (s,z,𝓁)-Temporal Cut problem, we show that it is APX-hard and we present a 2 log₂(2𝓁) approximation algorithm.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207