Non-Clashing Teaching Maps for Balls in Graphs
Abstract
Recently, Kirkpatrick et al. [ALT 2019] and Fallat et al. [JMLR 2023] introduced non-clashing teaching and showed it is the most efficient machine teaching model satisfying the Goldman-Mathias collusion-avoidance criterion. A teaching map for a concept class assigns a (teaching) set of examples to each concept . A teaching map is non-clashing if no pair of concepts are consistent with the union of their teaching sets. The size of a non-clashing teaching map (NCTM) is the maximum size of a teaching set , . The non-clashing teaching dimension NCTD of is the minimum size of an NCTM for . NCTM and NCTD are defined analogously, except the teacher may only use positive examples. We study NCTMs and NCTMs for the concept class consisting of all balls of a graph . We show that the associated decision problem B-NCTD for NCTD is NP-complete in split, co-bipartite, and bipartite graphs. Surprisingly, we even prove that, unless the ETH fails, B-NCTD does not admit an algorithm running in time , nor a kernelization algorithm outputting a kernel with vertices, where vc is the vertex cover number of . We complement these lower bounds with matching upper bounds. These are extremely rare results: it is only the second problem in NP to admit such a tight double-exponential lower bound parameterized by vc, and only one of very few problems to admit such an ETH-based conditional lower bound on the number of vertices in a kernel. For trees, interval graphs, cycles, and trees of cycles, we derive NCTMs or NCTMs for of size proportional to its VC-dimension, and for Gromov-hyperbolic graphs, we design an approximate NCTM of size 2.
Cite
@article{arxiv.2309.02876,
title = {Non-Clashing Teaching Maps for Balls in Graphs},
author = {Jérémie Chalopin and Victor Chepoi and Fionn Mc Inerney and Sébastien Ratel},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02876},
year = {2024}
}
Comments
Published in the proceedings of COLT 2024. Shortened abstract due to character limit